Bangalore District Court
Yasar Ansab T.A vs The Manager on 15 June, 2016
IN THE COURT OF III ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU. (SCCH-18)
Dated: This 15th day of June 2016
Present: SRI.VEERANNA SOMASEKHARA
B.Com, LL.B.,
III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE.
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BANGALORE.
M.V.C.No.4096/2015
PETITIONER: Yasar Ansab T.A.
S/o Abdul Rahman T.A.
Aged about 22 years,
Residing at Ana House,
Thurathi P.O.,
Kasargod,
Adkathbail,
Kasargod,
Kerala - 671121.
(By Pleader Sri.BKK)
/Vs./
RESPONDENT: 1. The Manager,
SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Ground floor, No.3/1,
Flatform road,
Seshadripuram,
Bangalore - 560 020.
(By pleader Sri.KP)
2 MVC.No.4096/2015
SCCH-18
2. M/s. Jyothi Conmix,
Partner G. Rakesh Babu,
Sy. No.93/2, Avadadenahalli,
Kasaba Hobli, Anekal Taluk,
Bangalore District - 562 106.
(By pleader Sri.JHN)
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner has filed this claim petition against the respondents U/Sec.166 of M.V. Act for seeking compensation of Rs.75,00,000/- with interest for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident.
2. The brief contents of the petition averments are as under:
On 14.05.2015 at about 2.45 p.m., the petitioner was riding the motor bike bearing registration No.KA-01-EA-4951 along with pillion rider and when they reached near Ambur Biriyani center on Maruthi Nagar, Bangalore, at that time, the driver of the Concrete Mixer Lorry bearing registration 3 MVC.No.4096/2015 SCCH-18 No.KA-51-B-0391, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the petitioner's vehicle. As a result of the said accident, the petitioner has fell down on the road along with motor bike and sustained grievous injuries. Thereafter the public gathered at the spot have shifted the injured to St. John's Hospital, Bangalore, wherein he has taken treatment as an inpatient and underwent surgery and thereafter, he was shifted to Tejaswini hospital, Mangalore, wherein he has taken treatment as an inpatient and underwent surgery and also he has taken treatment as an inpatient at FMMC Hospital, Mangalore. During the course of treatment, the petitioner's right leg above the knee was amputated. After discharge from the hospital, he has taken follow up treatment as an outpatient and till today, he is taking treatment as an outpatient. Further the contention of the petitioner is that, he has spent huge amount towards medical and other incidental charges.
3. The contention of petitioner is that, he was hale and healthy at the time accident and aged about 22 years, working as 4 MVC.No.4096/2015 SCCH-18 a Web Designer and also doing Spicy business at Thurathi at Kasargod and earning Rs.50,000/-p.m. Further due to the accidental injuries, he has suffered permanent disablement and he is not in a position to lead normal life and also he is not in a position to work as he was doing earlier to the accident and as such, he has lost the earning capacity and he has lost his bright employment opportunity.
The respondent No.1 & 2 are the insurer and the owner of the alleged lorry and the policy was in force as on the date of accident. The accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry bearing registration No.KA-51-B-0391. Contending the above facts, the petitioner has filed this petition against the respondents for seeking compensation of Rs.75,00,000/- with interest and cost.
4. In response to the petition notice, the respondent No.1 & 2 have appeared before the court through their respective counsel and filed the written statement. 5 MVC.No.4096/2015
SCCH-18
5. The brief contents of objection statement of respondent No.1 are as under:
The respondent No.1 has admitted the issuance of policy to the alleged vehicle and the liability if any is subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the policy. Further he contended that, the petitioner has not approached the court with clean hands as he has lodged the false complaint against the insured vehicle by twisting the real facts. Further he contended that, at the time of accident, the petitioner was not having driving licence to ride the motor bike and also he has ridden the motor bike in a rash and negligent manner and due to his own negligence, he fell down from bike. Further he contended that, the owner of the vehicle and the concerned police have not complied the mandatory provision of section 134 (c) and 158 (6) of MV Act. Further the respondent No.1 has denied the age, occupation and income of the petitioner and injuries sustained by him and the medical expenses incurred by him and also 6 MVC.No.4096/2015 SCCH-18 disablement suffered by him. Contending the above facts, he prays to dismiss the petition as against him.
6. The brief contents of objection statement of respondent No.2 is as under:-
The petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Further, he contended that, he is the owner of the concrete mixer lorry and the said lorry insured with the respondent No.1 and the policy was in force as on the date of accident and as such, if this court grants the compensation then, the respondent No.1 is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Further he contended that, the alleged accident has not occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and on the other hand, the accident has occurred due to negligence on the part of the petitioner. Further he has denied the age, occupation and income of the petitioner and also injuries sustained by him and medical expenses incurred by him. Further he contended that, the petitioner has also contributed major extent of negligence 7 MVC.No.4096/2015 SCCH-18 for occurrence of accident. Contending the above facts, he prays to dismiss the petition as against him.
7. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues were framed:
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he had sustained grievous injuries in an accident that was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the LORRY bearing Reg.No.KA-51-B-0391 on 14.05.2015 at about 02:45 p.m., near Ambur Biriyani Centre, on Maruthi Nagar Main Road, Bangalore?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed? If so, at what rate and from whom?
3. What order or award?
8. In order to prove the case, the petitioner has examined himself as PW-1 and got marked the documents as Ex-P-1 to 23. In support of his evidence, he has examined AAO of Tejaswini hospital and MRD of F.M.M.C. hospital, Mangalore as PW-2 and 3 and got marked the documents as Ex.P.24 to 30 respectively. Further in support of his evidence, he has examined Dr.Mahadev Kumar P. as PW-4 and got marked the documents as Ex.P.31 to 33 8 MVC.No.4096/2015 SCCH-18
9. The respondents have not produced any oral and documentary evidence on their behalf.
10. Heard the arguments and perused the records.
11. My findings to the aforesaid issues are as follows:
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative Issue No.2: In the Partly Affirmative Issue No.3: As per final order for the following:
R E A S O N S
12. ISSUE NO.1:-. During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued by reiterating the contents of petition and also evidence put forth by P.w.1 to 4. Further he argued that, the defence of the respondents is that, the accident has occurred due to contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner and to prove the said fact, the respondents have not produced any rebuttal documents. On the other hand, on perusal of the copy of police investigation papers produced by the petitioner, it shows that, the accident has occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the driver of the alleged lorry. Further he argued that, the petitioner has 9 MVC.No.4096/2015 SCCH-18 sustained grievous injuries to his right leg and left leg and during the course of treatment, the petitioner's right leg on the above knee was amputed and he has taken treatment as an inpatient in various hospitals for a period of two months and spent more than Rs.15,00,000/- towards medical expenses. Further he argued that, as per the version of the Doctor, the petitioner has suffered disability to the extent of 94.17%. Further he argued that, the petitioner has proved his case as contended in the petition by producing oral and documentary evidence. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.
In support of his arguments, the counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following citations:-
1. 2014 ACJ 627 (Syed Sadiq and others vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.)
2. 2014 ACJ 653 (Sanjay Kumar vs. Ashok Kumar and another)
3. 2011 ACJ 2418 (Ranjana Prakash and others vs. Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and another) 10 MVC.No.4096/2015 SCCH-18
4. 2014 ACJ 1412 (Dinesh Singh vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.)
5. 2012 ACJ 28 (Govind Yadav vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.)
6. MFA No.2369/2011 (MV) C/W MFA No.2370/2011, 2371/11, 2444/11 and 2446/11 (MV)
7. 2014 ACJ 1441 (V. Mekala vs. M. Malathi and another)
13. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 argued by reiterating the contents of objection statement filed by the respondent No.1. Further he argued that, on perusal of the copy of police investigation papers produced by the petitioner and also on perusal of evidence of petitioner, it is clear that, the petitioner has contributed major extent of negligence for occurrence of accident. Further he argued that, as per the version of the Doctor, though the petitioner has suffered disability to the extent of 94.17%. But, if the petitioner underwent surgery and artificial limb is fixed to his 11 MVC.No.4096/2015 SCCH-18 right leg, then the alleged extent of disability suffered by the petitioner would be reduced. Further he argued that, as per the version of the petitioner, he was working as Web Designer and also assisting to his father for doing spicy business. But, to prove the said fact, the petitioner has not produced supportive documents. On the other hand, he has admitted in his cross examination that, at the time of accident, he is searching the job in Bangalore city. Hence, on perusal of the evidence of PW-1, it is clear that, at the time of accident, the petitioner was unemployee. Further he argued that, the petitioner has produced the number of medical bills, but some of the bills are estimate bills and also credit bills and as such, the respondent No.1 has disputed the genuineness of the medical bills. But, in spite of that, the petitioner has not proved those bills by examining the author of the said bills. Further he argued that, the petitioner has failed to prove his case as contended in the petition by producing proper documents. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition as against respondent No.1. 12 MVC.No.4096/2015
SCCH-18
14. On perusal of the records, it appears that, to prove the case, the petitioner has examined himself as PW-1 and he has stated in his evidence by reiterating the contents of petition. In support of his evidence, he has produced the documents and the same are marked as Ex.P.21 to P.23.
Thereafter the counsel for the respondent No.1 has cross examined the PW-1 at length. In the cross examination, the PW-1 has clearly stated at page No.10 and 11 that:-
"C¥ÀWÁvÀªÁ¬ÄvÉAzÀÄ ºÉýzÁUÀ £Á£ÀÄ ¨ÉÊPï£ÀÄß Cw ªÉÃUÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CeÁUÀgÀÆPÀvɬÄAzÀ ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV ¯ÁjUÉ vÁV¹ C¥ÀWÁvÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀĪɣÉAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. C¥ÀWÁvÀªÁ¬ÄvÉAzÀÄ ºÉýzÁUÀ ¯ÁjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ZÁ®PÀ£ÀÄ ¸ÁªÀPÁ±ÀªÁV ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¹PÉÆAqÀÄ §gÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, D ªÉüÉUÉ £Á£ÀÄ ¨ÉÊPï£ÀÄß ªÉÃUÀªÁV ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¹PÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ, ¯ÁjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß »A§¢ ºÁPÀ®Ä ºÉÆÃV, ¯ÁjUÉ vÁV¹ C¥ÀWÁvÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀĪɣÉAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è.
C¥ÀWÁvÀªÁUÀ®Ä ¯Áj ZÁ®PÀ£À ¤®ðPÀëªÀÅ JµÀÆÖ ¥ÀæªÀiÁtzÀ°è EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. C¥ÀWÁvÀªÀÅ ¯Áj ZÁ®PÀ£À vÀ¦à¤AzÀ DUÀzÉà £À£Àß vÀ¦à¤AzÀ DVgÀĪÀÅzÉAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è."
13 MVC.No.4096/2015
SCCH-18 On perusal of the above evidence, it is clear that, the defence of the respondent No.1 is that, the accident has not occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of the alleged lorry. On the other hand, the accident has occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the petitioner as he was riding the motor bike in a rash and negligent manner and while overtaking the lorry, he has hit to the lorry and caused the accident.
To prove the said defence, the respondent No.1 has not produced any rebuttal documents. On the other hand, on perusal of the entire evidence of PW-1, it appears that, though the counsel for the respondent No.1 has cross examined the PW-1 at length. But, nothing has been elicited from him to disbelieve his version regarding the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the alleged lorry.
15. Further in support of his oral evidence and to prove the rash and negligent act of the driver of the alleged lorry, the petitioner has relied upon the copy of policy investigation papers 14 MVC.No.4096/2015 SCCH-18 and the same are marked as Ex.P.1 to 8. On perusal of Ex.P.1 and 8 i.e., copy of FIR with complaint and charge sheet, it reveals that, the Madiwala Traffic Police have registered a case against the driver of the lorry and after completion of investigation, the concerned police have filed the charge sheet against the driver of the lorry.
16. Further as stated above that, as per the version of the respondent No.1, if at all the petitioner has also contributed some extent of negligence for occurrence of accident, then it was the duty of the respondent No.1 to examine the driver of the alleged lorry or any one of the chargesheeted witness. But, the respondent No.1 did not do so.
Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of evidence of PW-1 coupled with documents and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the petitioner has proved that, the accident has occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry bearing 15 MVC.No.4096/2015 SCCH-18 reg. No.KA-51-B-0391 by producing oral and documentary evidence.
17. Further on perusal of Ex.P.7 i.e., copy of wound certificate, it appears that, the petitioner has sustained simple as well as grievous injuries in the above said accident.
18. On appreciation of evidence of PW-1 coupled with documents and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the petitioner has proved this issue by producing sufficient documents. Accordingly, I answer this issue is in the Affirmative.
19. ISSUE NO.2:- The specific contention of the petitioner is that, he was hale and healthy at the time of accident, aged about 22 years, working as a Web Designer and also assisting his father for running spicy business at Kasargod, Kerala state and earning Rs.50,000/-p.m. Further the contention of the petitioner is that, due to the accidental injuries, his right leg above the knee was amputed and also he has sustained fracture of both bones of left leg and as such, he has suffered 16 MVC.No.4096/2015 SCCH-18 permanent disablement and he is not in a position to work as he was doing earlier to the accident.
On the other hand, the respondents have disputed the age, occupation and income of the petitioner and also disablement suffered by him.
20. To prove the age, the petitioner has relied upon the copy of driving licence and the same is marked as Ex.P.12. On perusal of Ex.P.12, the date of birth of petitioner is shown in the said document as on 16.02.1993 and the same is considered as date of birth of the petitioner, then, it is clear that, as on the date of accident, the petitioner was aged about 22 years. Hence, the proper multiplier applicable to the case on hand is 18.
21. Further to prove the occupation and income, the petitioner has not produced any supportive documents. On the other hand, to prove his educational qualification, the petitioner has relied upon the documents at Ex.P.13 to 15 i.e., copy of PUC marks card and certificate issued by G-Tec computer education. On perusal of Ex.P.13, it appears that, in the year 2011, the 17 MVC.No.4096/2015 SCCH-18 petitioner has completed his 1st year PUC. Further on perusal of Ex.P.14 and 15, it appears that, the petitioner has completed his Diploma in Web designing training course for a period of 3 months. But, as stated above that, as per the version of the petitioner, he was working as a Web designer and assisting to his father in doing spicy business at Kasargod. But, on perusal of the evidence of PW-1, it appears that, he has clearly admitted in his evidence that, on the date of accident, he was searching for the job at Bangalore. On the other hand, on perusal of charge sheet, wherein the occupation of the petitioner is shown as employee in private firm. Considering the above facts and also looking to the contents of petition and contents of charge sheet and on perusal of evidence of Pw-1, it appears that, there was a contradictory version in between his oral and documentary evidence. Considering the above facts, I am of the opinion that, at the time of accident, the petitioner was not employeed. Considering the above facts and in the absence of positive evidence regarding the occupation and income of the petitioner, 18 MVC.No.4096/2015 SCCH-18 I am of the opinion that, if the income of the petitioner is considered as Rs.8,000/- p.m. certainly it would meet the ends of justice.
22. To prove the disablement suffered by him, the petitioner has examined Dr. Mahadeva Kumar P. as PW-4, who has stated in his evidence regarding the injuries sustained by the petitioner and also disablement suffered by him. Further he has stated in his evidence that, the petitioner's right leg above knee was amputed and the petitioner underwent surgery for fracture of both bones of his left leg. Further, he has stated that, the petitioner has suffered disability to the extent of 94.17% to the whole body.
Thereafter the counsel for the respondent No.1 has cross examined the PW-4 at length. In the cross examination, the PW-4 has clearly sated that:-
"UÁAiÀiÁ¼ÀÄ AiÀiÁ¸Àgï C£Áì¨ï EªÀjUÉ DzÀ UÁAiÀÄUÀ½UÉ aQvÉì ¤ÃrzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ±À¸ÀÛa ç QvÉì ªÀiÁrzÀ ªÉÊzÀågÀ vÀAqÀzÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ M§â ¸ÀzÀ¸Àå ªÉÊzÀå¤zÉÝ£ÀÄ. 19 MVC.No.4096/2015
SCCH-18 §®PÁ®Ä ªÉÆtPÁ°£À ªÀÉÄïÁãUÀ¢AzÀ vÀÄAqÀj¹ ºÁQzÀÄÝ, CzÀjAzÀ UÁAiÀiÁ¼ÀÄ PÀÈvÀPÀ PÁ®£ÀÄß D ¨sÁUÀPÉÌ C¼ÀªÀr¹PÉÆArgÀĪÀ£ÉAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀ PÁ°£À vÀÄAqÀj¹zÀ ¨sÁUÀPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ PÀÈvÀPÀ PÁ®£ÀÄß C¼ÀªÀr¹PÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÁzÀ°è, D ¨sÁUÀzÀ PÀÈvÀPÀ PÁ®Ä ¹UÀĪÀÅzÉAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. UÁAiÀiÁ¼ÀÄ vÀ£Àß §®PÁ°£À vÀÄAqÀj¹zÀ ¨sÁUÀPÉÌ PÀÈvÀPÀ PÁ®£ÀÄß C¼ÀªÀr¹PÉÆAqÀ°è £ÀqÉzÁqÀ§ºÀÄzÉAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¸À¯ÁV, £ÀqÉzÁqÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ, DzÀgÉ £ÉÆêÀÅ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ vÉÆAzÀgÉAiÀÉÆA¢UÉ £ÀqÉzÁqÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ, PÁgÀt, D ¨sÁUÀzÀ°è ZÀªÀÄð PÀ¹ DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. §®PÁ°£À UÁAiÀĪÀÅ FUÁUÀ¯Éà UÀÄtªÀÄÄRªÁVgÀĪÀ PÁgÀt, UÁAiÀiÁ¼ÀÄ PÀÈvÀPÀ PÁ®Ä C¼ÀªÀr¹PÉÆAqÀ°è, DvÀ¤UÉ NqÁqÀ®Ä AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà jÃw vÉÆAzÀgÉ DUÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è."
On perusal of the above evidence, it is clear that, the Pw-4 is a treated doctor. Further on perusal of Ex.P.19 i.e., photo, it shows that, the petitioner's right leg above the knee (middle the thigh) was amputed. Further as per the version of the doctor, the petitioner has suffered disability to the extent of 85% due to the right leg amputed.
20 MVC.No.4096/2015
SCCH-18 At this stage, I have gone through the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, wherein at schedule I, part II, serial No.18 which reads as under:-
"Amputation below hip with stump not exceeding (12.70 cms) in length measured from tip of great trenchanter but not beyond middle thigh - Extent of earning capacity is 80%". Further as stated above that, the petitioner has sustained fracture of both bones of left leg and also his left foot 2nd toe was amputed. Considering the above facts and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, if the extent of disability suffered by the petitioner is considered as 85% to the whole body, certainly it would meet the ends of justice.
23. The income of the petitioner is considered as Rs.8,000/- p.m. and the disability is considered as 85% and the Multiplier "18" is applied, then the loss of future income comes to Rs.14,68,800/- (8,000 x 12 x 85/100 x 18). Considering the above facts, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for 21 MVC.No.4096/2015 SCCH-18 compensation of Rs.14,69,000/- under the head of loss of future income.
24. Further on perusal of Ex.P.7 i.e., copy of wound certificate, it shows that, the petitioner has sustained the following injuries:-
1. Fracture of both bones of left leg
2. Amputation of left 2nd toe
3. Right leg above the knee was amputed Further on perusal of Ex.P.32, 9 to 11 i.e., case sheet and discharge summaries, it appears that, the petitioner has taken treatment as an inpatient for a period of 18 days at St. John's hospital, Bangalore and he has taken treatment as an inpatient for a period of 16 days at Tejaswini hospital, Mangalore and has taken treatment as an inpatient for a period of 12 days at F.M.M.C. hospital, Mangalore. Considering the above facts, and looking to the age and occupation of the petitioner and considering the nature of injury, I deem it just and reasonable 22 MVC.No.4096/2015 SCCH-18 to grant for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of Pain and sufferings.
25. Further as stated above that, the petitioner has suffered disability to the extent of 85% to the whole body and his right leg was amputed above the knee. Considering the above facts, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.50,000/- under the head of Loss of amenities.
26. Further on perusal of the records, it appears that, the petitioner is an unmarried person. Considering the above facts, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.50,000/- under the head of loss of marriage prospectus.
27. Further as stated above that, the petitioner has taken treatment as an inpatient for a period of 46 days at various hospital. Considering the above facts, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.46,000/- under the head of attendant, nourishment and conveyance charges. 23 MVC.No.4096/2015
SCCH-18
28. Further due to the accidental injuries, the petitioner might not have attended his regular work atleast for a period of six months as he was hospitalized for a period of 1 ½ months and as such, if 8 months income is awarded under the head of loss of income, certainly it would meet the ends of justice. Considering the above facts, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.64,000/- under the head of loss of income during laid up period and rest period.
29. The petitioner has contended that, he has spent huge amount towards medical expenses and other incidental charges. In support of the said contention, the petitioner has relied upon the medical bills and other bills, the same are marked as Ex.P.16, 17, 18 and 21. On the other hand, respondent No.1 has disputed the genuineness of the said bills and to that effect, the counsel for the petitioner has cross examined the PW-1 at length. But nothing has been elicited from him to disbelieve those bills. On perusal of the medical bills and other bills, it appears that, the 24 MVC.No.4096/2015 SCCH-18 petitioner has spent an amount of Rs.11,45,532/- towards medical and other expenses. Considering the above facts, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.11,46,000/- towards medical expenses.
30. The PW-4 has stated that, the petitioner required one more surgery for removal of implants and the cost of the said surgery is Rs.60,000/-. In support of his evidence, he has not produced any supportive documents. Considering the above facts and in the absence of positive documents, I am of the opinion that, if an amount of Rs.25,000/- is awarded under the head of future medical expenses certainly it would meet the ends of justice.
31. The petitioner has stated that, he requires an amount of Rs.16,00,000/- to Rs.17,00,000/- for the artificial limb to his right leg. In support of his version, he has not produced any supportive documents. Considering the above facts and looking to the nature of treatment i.e., fixing of artificial limb, I am of 25 MVC.No.4096/2015 SCCH-18 the opinion that, if an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- is awarded towards cost of artificial limb, certainly it would meet the ends of justice. Considering the above facts, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- towards cost of artificial leg.
32. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs.31,00,000/- under the following heads:
Compensation heads Compensation
amount
1. Loss of future earnings Rs. 14,69,000/-
2. Medical expenses Rs. 11,46,000/-
3. Loss of Pain and suffering Rs. 1,00,000/-
4. Loss of income during laid up period & Rs. 64,000/-
rest period
5. Nourishment, conveyance & attendant Rs. 46,000/-
charges
6. Loss of amenities Rs. 50,000/-
7. Loss of Marriage prospectus Rs. 50,000/-
8. Future medical expenses Rs. 25,000/-
9. Towards of cost of artificial limb Rs. 1,50,000/-
Total Rs.31,00,000/-
26 MVC.No.4096/2015
SCCH-18
33. LIABILITY: On perusal of the contents of petition and objection statement, it appears that, the respondent No.2 is the owner and the respondent No.1 is the insurer of the lorry bearing registration No.KA-51-B-0391 and the policy was in force as on the date of accident. Further as stated above that, the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the alleged Lorry. Hence, the respondent No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. However, the respondent No.1 being the insurer of the lorry is liable to pay compensation of Rs.31,00,000/- with interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Accordingly, I answer the issue No.2 in the partly affirmative.
34. ISSUE NO.3: In view of above discussion on issues Nos.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following;
O R D E R The petition filed by the petitioner U/s 166 of MV act is partly allowed with cost.
27 MVC.No.4096/2015
SCCH-18 The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.31,00,000/-with interest @9% p.a. (future medical expenses does not carry interest) from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
The respondent No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. However, in view of the policy, the respondent No.1 is directed to deposit the above compensation amount in this tribunal within a month from the date of this order.
After deposit of compensation amount, looking to the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner, an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- shall be kept in FD in the name of petitioner in any nationalized bank/ schedule Bank of the petitioner's choice, for a period of 3 years.
Remaining amount with accrued interest shall be released in the name of petitioner through account payee cheque on proper identification.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open court on this 15th day of June 2016).
(VEERANNA SOMASEKHARA) III ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXIX ACMM, BANGALORE.
28 MVC.No.4096/2015
SCCH-18 ANNEXURES List of witnesses examined on petitioner's side:
P.W.1. Yasar Ansab.T.A. P.W.2. Rakesh Shetty P.W.3. Aline Roshan P.W.4. Dr. Mahadev Kumar List of documents exhibited on petitioner's side:
Ex-P1 True copy of FIR with complaint
Ex-P2 True copy of Panchanama
Ex-P3 True copy of Hand sketch
Ex-P4 True copy of MVA report
Ex-P5 True copy of 133 notice
Ex-P6 True copy of 133 reply notice
Ex-P7 True copy of Wound certificate
Ex-P8 True copy of Charge sheet
Ex-P9-11 Discharge summary
Ex-P12 Notarized copy of Driving License
Ex-P13 Notarized copy of Marks card of SSLC
Ex-P14&15 Notarized copy of Computer education certificate
Ex-P16 Ambulance receipt
Ex-P17&18 Medical bill
Ex-P19 Photo
Ex-P20 CD
Ex-P21 Medical bills
Ex-P22 Advance receipts
Ex-P23 X-rays
Ex-P24 Letter
Ex-P25&26 Inpatient record
Ex-P27 Lab report
Ex-P28 X-ray
Ex-P29 Letter
Ex-P30 Case sheet
29 MVC.No.4096/2015
SCCH-18
Ex-P31 Outpatient record
Ex-P32 Inpatient record
Ex-P33 X-ray 4 in Nos.
Ex-P33(a) CD
List of witnesses examined on respondents side:
-NIL-
List of documents exhibited on respondents side:
-NIL-
III ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXIX ACMM.