Bangalore District Court
Mubarak Ahamad Alias Mubarak Pasha vs Ryblue Logistics Pvt Ltd on 16 January, 2025
KABC020025352024
BEFORE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU CITY
SCCH-17
Present: Sri. KANCHI MAYANNA GOUTAM B.A.L, LL.M.,
Member, MACT
XIX ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes,
BENGALURU.
Dated this the 16th day of January - 2025
MVC No.458/2024
PETITIONER/S: Sri Mubarak Ahamad
@ Mubarak Pasha
S/o Shabbir Ahamad,
Aged about 38 years,
R/o No.345, Madhuranagar,
Varthur, Bangalore 560087.
(By Sri. T V Ramesh, Adv.,)
V/s.
RESPONDENTS: 1. M/s Ryblue Logistics Pvt Ltd.,
No.790, Borlingappa garden,
Beside SRS colony, 1st stage,
1st main road, Peenya,
Bangalore 560058.
(Exparte)
2. The Royal Sundaram General
Insurance Company Limited
Branch office
SCCH-17 2 MVC No.458/2024
Raghavendra plaza, 1st floor,
1st cross, Hosur main road,
Wilson garden, Bangalore 27.
(By Sri. B.N. Sreekanta Swamy, Adv.,)
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed this petition U/Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident that occurred on 16-12-2023.
2. The petition averments in brief are as under:
On 16-12-2023 at about 10.20 a.m.,the petitioner was proceeding by riding motor cycle bearing No.KA.11.ET.2800 by wearing helmet towards Madhuranagar, Bangalore from Mallasandra village on NH 207 road, in between Anchemuskuru - Baguru Sonnahalli villages, Lakkur hobli, Malur taluk, Kolar district the driver of the container lorry bearing No. KA.04.AC.7110 came from Chikkathirupathi side at high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed SCCH-17 3 MVC No.458/2024 violently against the motor cycle of the petitioner and caused the accident. Due to the said impact, the petitioner knocked down and sustained grievous injuries.
Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to MVJ Hospital, Hosakote, wherein he took treatment as an inpatient for right lower limb amputation and sustained 100% disability. He has spent Rs.2,50,000/- towards hospitalization charges, treatment, medicines, conveyance etc., Prior to the accident, petitioner was working as a driver and earning Rs.30,000/- per month. Due to the accidental injuries petitioner is not able to continue his work and lost his earning capacity.
The respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 being the insurer of the container lorry are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Hence, prays to award compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- with interest.SCCH-17 4 MVC No.458/2024
3. After service of notices respondent No.1 owner has not appeared before the tribunal, hence, placed exparte.
After service of notice, respondent No.2 - insurance company appeared through its counsel and filed its written statement by denying the cause and manner of accident and contended that the rider of the motor cycle without having driving licence ridden the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the insured Lorry and caused the accident. Further has denied the avocation and income of the petitioner, injuries sustained by the petitioner, treatment taken and disability sustained by the petitioner. It has admitted the issuance of policy for the offending Lorry bearing No. KA.04.AC.7110 and the liability if any is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. The compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive, astronomical and imaginary. By claiming the contributory negligence SCCH-17 5 MVC No.458/2024 by the petitioner the respondent No.2 insurance company prays to dismiss the petition against it.
4. On the basis of the rival contention, the following issues are framed by this court:
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, he has sustained grievous injuries due to the actionable negligent driving of container lorry bearing No. KA-04-AC-7110 by its driver, in RTA took place on 16-12-2023 at about 10.20 a.m. in between Anchemuskuru - Baguru, Maluru Taluk ?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what amount & from whom?
3. What order or award?
5. In order to prove the claim petition, the petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to 16. Dr. S A Somashekara is examined as PW.2 and got marked the documents at Ex.P17 & 18. On the other hand respondents have not lead any evidence.
SCCH-17 6 MVC No.458/2024
6. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the material evidence that are available on record.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following citations reported in:
i) 2010 ACJ 487 between S Suresh Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., and another.
ii) 2020 ACJ 704 between Channappa Nagappa Muchalagoda Vs. Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
iii) 2020 ACJ 2108 between Sudeep A K Vs. General manager, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and others.
iv) MFA No. 1318/2021 (MV-I) between Sri M Mani Vs. Sri A Gulsar and another.
v) Civil Appeal No.3247/2023 between Sushila and others Vs. Ram Swaroop and others.
7. My findings on the above issues are as under.
Issue No.1 : In the affirmative;
Issue No.2 : In the affirmative
Issue No.3 : As per final orders
for the following:-
SCCH-17 7 MVC No.458/2024
: R E A S O N S:
ISSUE NO.1 :
8. That by reiterating all the averments made in the petition, the petitioner has filed his affidavit in lieu of- examination in-chief, which is considered as P.W.1. In support of his case, he has produced true copies of FIR, complaint, spot mahazar, IMV report, wound certificate and charge sheet which are marked under Ex.P.1 to 6.
9. On perusal of Ex.P1- FIR which is registered on the basis of Ex.P2 complaint given by brother of the petitioner. After the registration of FIR as per Ex.P1, the Ex.P3 spot mahazar was prepared by the I.O. On perusal of the contents of mahazar the petitioner was proceeding towards Madhuranagar from Mallasandra. The rough sketch is not produced by the petitioner. The description of the accident spot as mentioned in Ex.P3 mahazar is hereby quoted for the better appreciation of the point.
"ಸ್ಥಳವನ್ನು ಪೊಲೀಸರು ಪಂಚರಾದ ನಮ್ಮಗಳ ಸಮಕ್ಷಮ ಅಜಮಾಯಿಷಿ ಮಾಡಲಾಗಿ ಇದು ಸರ್ಜಾಪುರ - ಹೊಸಕೋಟೆ ಎನ್.ಹೆಚ್
- 207 ಹೆದ್ದಾ ರಿಯಾಗಿದ್ದು , ಅಂಚೇ ಮೂಸ್ದೂ ರು ಸೊಣ್ಣಗಳ್ಳಿ ಮದ್ಯೆ ಅಂಚೇ SCCH-17 8 MVC No.458/2024 ಮೂಸ್ಕೂ ರು ಗ್ರಾ ಮದ ನಂಜುಂಡಪ್ಪ ರವರ ನೀಲಗಿರಿ ತೋಪಿನ ಮುಂದೆ ಠಾರ್ ರಸ್ತೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಆಗಿರುತ್ತೆ. ಸದರಿ ಠಾರ್ ರಸ್ತೆಯು ತಿರುವು ರಸ್ತೆಯಾಗಿದ್ದು , ಉತ್ತರ - ದಕ್ಷಿಣಾಬಿ ಮುಖವಾಗಿರುತ್ತೆ. ಠಾರ್ ರಸ್ತೆಯ ಅಗಳ 30 ಅಡಿಗಳು ಇದ್ದು ರಸ್ತೆಯ ಎರಡು ಬದಿಯಲ್ಲಿ 4 ಅಡಿಗಳಷ್ಟು ಪುಟ್ ಪಾತ್ ಇರುತ್ತೆ. ಅಪಘಾತದ ಸ್ಥಳವು ಠಾರ್ ರಸ್ತೆಯ ಪೂರ್ವದ ಕಡೆ ಅಂಚಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಆಗಿರುತ್ತೆ. ಸದರಿ ಸ್ಥಳದಲ್ಲಿ ರಕ್ತ ಹರಿದು ಹೆಪ್ಪುಕಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತೆ".
Thereby at the time of mahazar, on 16.12.2023 the IO has found the marks of the accident along with blood in the accident spot. The accident was occurred at 10.20 a.m. and on the very same day at about 4.30 p.m. the complaint was lodged. Thereby there was no inordinate delay in registering the complaint to look the case of the petitioner suspiciously.
10. As per the description of the accident spot mentioned in Ex.P3 which is quoted above, there is a turning in the accident spot and the accident is in eastern side edge of the road and the road is north to south. This shows that the accident spot is in the left side edge of the road hence, the petitioner was proceeding. Further the Ex.P4 is IMV report wherein the right side fuel tank guard of the offending vehicle bearing SCCH-17 9 MVC No.458/2024 No. KA-04-AC-7110 has got damaged and the motor cycle of the petitioner has got fully damaged in its front and right side.
11. The another important aspect need to be considered that the respondent No.2 insurance company has taken specific defence that as per Ex.P7 when the petitioner was taken to MVJ Medical College on 16.12.2023 at about 1.53 p.m. on examination the doctors have found that the petitioner was under the influence of alcohol. As such, by relying on the said observation made in Ex.P7 discharge summary the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 contended that the damages on the offending vehicle is near the right side fuel tank guard as such, the petitioner being drunken under the influence of alcohol went opposite side and dashed against the middle portion of the container bearing No. KA-04-AC-7110 as such, there is a contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner. The same defence is also suggested to the petitioner by the SCCH-17 10 MVC No.458/2024 learned counsel for the respondent No.2 at the time of cross-examination, which is denied by the petitioner.
12. The next squirt of defence of respondent No.2 is that, the petitioner was riding his motor cycle under the influence of alcohol as such by losing the control over his vehicle he himself dashed against the middle portion of the alleged offending vehicle in turn, the petitioner also contributes to the accident and as such there is of contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner.
13. It could be culled out from the materials placed on record that it is not in dispute that the petitioner was proceeding in his motor cycle and he was the rider of the said motor cycle. Further more Ex.P.3 being the Spot sketch also discloses that the offending vehicle had came from opposite road. The contents of mahazar as discussed above, clearly discloses that the accident spot is in the left side edge of the road in which the petitioner was proceeding and in turn it also establishes that the driver of offending vehicle bearing No. KA-04-AC-7110 SCCH-17 11 MVC No.458/2024 came to its right side road and resulted in the accident. When such being the specific documentary proof placed on record it could be easily ascertained that the accident happened because of rash and negligent act of the the driver of offending vehicle bearing No. KA-04-AC-7110. Only for the reason that at the time of admission in the hospital the petitioner found under the influence of alcohol does not means that he was riding in a rash and negligent manner. From the Ex.P.3 mahazar coupled with Ex.P.6 chargesheet when these documents are read in consonance with which other, it could be easily ascertained that the offending vehicle driver had hit the two wheeler from wrong side. When such being the case it is the accident happened because of the shear negligence on the part of the the driver of offending vehicle bearing No. KA-04-AC-7110. If the the driver of offending vehicle bearing No. KA-04-AC-7110 was driving the vehicle cautiously, then he would have certainly avoided the accident. No doubt in the present case as SCCH-17 12 MVC No.458/2024 per the discharge summary at the time of admission the petitioner was under the influence of alcohol. But there is absolutely no iota of evidence led by the insurer to establish that the violation of statutory provision itself was that the cause of accident to attribute contributory negligence because the mahazar establishes that the the driver of offending vehicle bearing No. KA-04-AC-7110 came to his wrong side .
14. In this regard it is relevant to relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.79/2020 (Mohammad Siddique & another V/s National Insurance Company Ltd & others), wherein it is held that "Simply because there is a violation of Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 by a victim in an accident, there is no presumption that there is contributory negligence on the part of the person who was not wearing the helmet. It is to be decided in the facts and circumstances of each case". That is to say, some other additional evidence is necessary to attribute contributory negligence to the petitioner which is not adduced in this case.
SCCH-17 13 MVC No.458/2024On the same point of law it is also relevant to rely on a decision reported in 2023 ACJ 2696 in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Munni Thapa and another wherein it was held as hereunder;
15. The fact that on the relevant date three persons including the victim were moving on a motorcycle at best may give rise to guilt of being party to violation of the traffic rules and regulations but that cannot make the victim guilty of contributory negligence unless it is established that his very act of moving along with two others on the motorcycle contributed either to the accident or to the impact of the accident upon the victim.
16. Further on the same point of law it is also relevant to rely on a decision reported in 2023 ACJ 2390 in the case of Jeyarani vs The Manager Bajaj Allianz General wherein it was held as hereunder;
"The only issues which arise for consideration in these appeals are with regard to the aspect of contributory negligence, and also the appropriate SCCH-17 14 MVC No.458/2024 income to be taken for the purpose of calculation of the quantum of compensation to be awarded. On the aspect relating to contributory negligence though, the High Court had referred to the decisions/judgments of this Court, we also take note of the decision/judgment of this Court dated 08.01.2020 in Civil Appeal No.79/2020 wherein, the aspect which is under consideration in the instant appeals, was specifically dealt with, and has been held that there should be specific evidence with regard to negligence even if an additional pillion was being carried on the two- wheeler, which is the vehicle on which the deceased was traveling while the accident took place.
17. Reverting back to the factual matrix the petitioner clearly established with a help of Ex.P3 being the spot sketch that the accident had happened because of the rash and negligent act of the offending vehicle driver who had dashed the motorcycle which was going on the extreme left side of the road . When such is the case this court cannot take any contributory negligence whatsoever of the petitioner. Added more in Ex.P.6 charge sheet there is absolutely nothing has been SCCH-17 15 MVC No.458/2024 whispered by the IO. The IO has also not invoked sec.185 of MV Act against the petitioner.
18. The Ex.P4 IMV report and Ex.P3 spot mahazar wherein the right side fuel tank guard dented and the motor cycle bearing No. KA.11.ET.2800 has got damages in front mag wheel bent, front both forks damaged, front right side indicator damaged, front registration number plate damaged, rear seat damaged, rear right side indicator damaged, front wheel mudguard damaged, front brake lever damaged and rear wheel brake lever bent clearly discloses that the driver of offending vehicle bearing No. KA-04-AC-7110 came to his extreme right side in a turn which resulted in the accident. This once again shows that the driver of Container Lorry bearing No. KA.04.AC.7110 tried to proceed in a wrong side which in turn helped the petitioners to prove the negligence of Container Lorry bearing No. KA.04.AC.7110. Except filing the written statement the SCCH-17 16 MVC No.458/2024 respondent No.2 insurance company has not lead any evidence in support of their defence.
19. Ex.P6 charge sheet is filed against the driver of the Container Lorry bearing No. KA.04.AC.7110, the IO has opined that the negligence is on the part of driver of the offending Container Lorry bearing No. KA.04.AC.7110.
20. In a claim for compensation under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the claimant is to prove the incident only on preponderance of probabilities and the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2011 SAR (CIVIL) 319 Kusum and others V/s Satbir and others.
Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Bimla Devi and others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others (2009) 13 SCC 530, wherein it is held that, it was necessary to be borne in mind that SCCH-17 17 MVC No.458/2024 strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. In this context by considering the contents of Ex.P1 to 6 this court tilts in favour of the petitioner as the petitioner has to prove the alleged negligence on the basis of the evidence and proof of the same on preponderance of probabilities.
21. As per well settled principle of law, the standard of proof in the claim petition like the present is preponderance of the probability. There are no grounds to disbelieve the case of petitioner. All the materials available on record leading to show that, petitioner has sustained injuries in the accident took place on 16.12.2023 which is caused by the the driver of offending vehicle bearing No. KA-04-AC-7110 which belongs to respondent No.1. There is no reason to discard the SCCH-17 18 MVC No.458/2024 evidence of petitioner. In the claim petition like present one strict proof is not necessary, but preponderance of probabilities is sufficient. Accordingly, issue No.1 answered in the affirmative.
ISSUE NO.2:
22. As already held herein above, the petitioner has proved that he has sustained injuries in RTA which is caused by the vehicle belongs to respondent No.1.
Hence, the petitioner is entitle for compensation. Now the quantum of compensation is to be ascertained on different heads.
a) PAIN AND AGONY:- At the time of alleged accident the petitioner was aged about 38 years. In the DL produced at Ex.P-16 the date of birth of the petitioner is shown as 09-12-1982. The accident took place in the year 2023. Hence, as on the date of accident, the petitioner was aged about 41 years.SCCH-17 19 MVC No.458/2024
As per the discharge summary produced at Ex.P7 the petitioner sustained severe traumatic crush injury to right leg and perilunate dislocation of right wrist. He underwent knee amputation of right lower limb on 16-12- 2023. As per the wound certificate marked at Ex.P.5 the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. By considering the nature of the injuries and period he spent to overcome the pain and other allied effects of the accident Rs.75,000/- may be awarded to the petitioner under this head.
b) Medical expenses: The petitioner has produced medical bills as per Ex.P15 amounting to Rs.1,47,539/-. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case in combined with the alleged injuries the petitioner is entitle for the reimbursement of the same by rounding of the same i.e., Rs.1,47,600/-.
SCCH-17 20 MVC No.458/2024
c) Loss of future income due to disability :
To prove the nature of injuries sustained by him the petitioner examined Dr. S A Somashekara, senior Orthopaedic Surgeon as PW.2, through him clinical notes and X-ray are marked at Ex.P17 & 18. According to the evidence of this witness the petitioner sustained severe traumatic crush injury to right leg and perilunate dislocation of right wrist and he also underwent surgery for amputation of right lower limb. PW.3 examined the petitioner for assessment of disability. As per PW.3 the petitioner suffered whole body permanent disability of 100%. As discussed above, the evidence of PW.2 shows that the condition of the petitioner he has to depend on other due to amputation of right lower limb. The petitioner has to walk with external support and also the stand and to move the petitioner is in need of external support. The said fact is established by the evidence of doctor PW.3 and also Ex.P.13 & 14 photographs. The age of the petitioner has to be considered to assess whether SCCH-17 21 MVC No.458/2024 the petitioner can live independently without any one support with the right leg above knee amputation. Thus, it can be construed that the petitioner has to be depend on others and his avocational disability has to be considered at 100%.
In this regard, I rely on the reportable decision, in Civil Appeal No.2476/2019 in the case of M.R.Krishamurthi V/s New India Assurance Company Ltd., decided on 05.03.2019, the Hon'ble supreme court has held as follows, "We may now summarize the principles discussed above:
(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.
(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that the percentage SCCH-17 22 MVC No.458/2024 of loss of earning capacity is the same as the percentage of permanent disability).
(iii) The doctor who treated an injured claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard to the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety.
(iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors."
A perusal of the injuries sustained, treatment taken and in view of the citation referred above, it is considered that though the petitioner is having 86% permanent physical disability, his avocational disability is 100% because the evidence of Pw.2 is clearly establishes that the petitioner is unable to attend his day to day work without assistance and unable to walk unassisted. This situation is nothing but making this tribunal to hold that the petitioner is unable to earn or to SCCH-17 23 MVC No.458/2024 live independently hence, this disability is considered at 100%.
The petitioner has stated that he was working as a driver and earning Rs.30,000/- p.m. In this regard petitioner has not produced any documents. As per Ex.P16 copy of DL shows that the petitioner has only the driving licence to drive LMV (NT). Further where the petitioner was working as driver and no documents are produced to show the exact income of the petitioner. With whom the petitioner used to do driver work is also not created nor established by the petitioner. The account statement or the employer is not examined before this tribunal. Such being the case, it is just and necessary to consider the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.16,000/- p.m. as the accident is of the year 2023.
As per Sarala Verma's case, the proper multiplier applicable to the age of petitioner is '14'. Hence, I inclined to award future loss of income at Rs.16,000/- X SCCH-17 24 MVC No.458/2024 12 X 14 X 100% = Rs.26,88,000/- which is the total loss of future income.
d) FOOD, NOURISHMENT AND CONVEYANCE; As per Ex.P7 discharge summary, the petitioner took treatment as inpatient for a period of 08 days and the injuries sustained by him grievous in nature. As per the wound certificate marked at Ex.P5 the injuries sustained by the petitioner are grievous in nature. By considering the nature of the injuries and period he spent to overcome the pain and other allied effects of the accident. Hence looking to the treatment taken by the petitioner and injuries sustained he is entitled for compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards food and nourishment, conveyance.
e) ATTENDANT CHARGES: For the reasons discussed above, is already held that the petitioner is suffering with 100% disability and unable to attend his own works without the assistance of others. This making this SCCH-17 25 MVC No.458/2024 tribunal to consider that the petitioner is in need of an attendant through out his life time. The services of the family members cannot be considered graciously. The petitioner should not be looked into as a burden to the family.
No evidence is lead by the petitioner to show that he has engaged an attendant by paying money. In Kajal Vs. Jaidish Chand reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 127, it is held that it would be appropriate to adopt the system of multiplier to award the compensation under the head 'Attendant Charges' as the claimant would require the care of an attendant for the rest of his life. As such this court is of the opinion that the claimant is entitled for 'Attendant Charges' at the rate of Rs.100 per day which is quantified at Rs.5,04,000/- (Rs.100 x 30 x 12 x 14). Therefore, it is just and reasonable to award Rs.5,04,000/- towards attendant charges. SCCH-17 26 MVC No.458/2024
f) Towards loss of amenities and enjoyment of life:
The petitioner admitted to the hospital for the injuries sustained by him, which might certainly have deprived his of the basic comforts and enjoyment. The petitioner has got amputation in the right leg above knee. Therefore, it is just and proper to award a reasonable sum of Rs.80,000/- under this head.
g) Towards future medical expenses: The Pw.2 doctor while assessing the disability also suggested that petitioner has needed a sophisticated prosthesis which is very expensive and runs in to many lakhs. By considering the same, the petitioner is entitle for Rs.80,000/- as compensation under this head.
h) Loss of income during laid up period: In this case the disability of the petitioner is considered at 100% and the multiplier is applied accordingly as such the loss of income during laid up period is not considered in lieu of petitioner is entitled for the compensation for 100% disability.SCCH-17 27 MVC No.458/2024
Thus, the petitioner is entitled for compensation under the following heads:
a) Towards pain and agony Rs. 75,000/-
b) Towards medical expenses Rs. 1,47,600/-
c) Towards loss of income NIL
d) Towards disability 26,88,000/-
e) Towards food, nourishment
and conveyance Rs. 50,000/-
f) Towards attendant charges Rs. 5,04,000/-
g) Towards loss of amenities Rs. 80,000/-
h) Towards future medical Rs. 80,000/-
expenses
_______________
Total Rs. 36,24,600/-
23. Liability:- According to the petitioner the respondent No.1 & 2 are the owner and insurer of the offending Container Lorry bearing No. KA.04.AC.7110.
The respondent No.2 in its objection statement has admitted the issuance of policy to the offending lorry and the policy was in force at the time of accident. No other grounds are made out by showing the violation of policy SCCH-17 28 MVC No.458/2024 condition by the respondent No.1. Hence, the respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner and the respondent No.2 insurance company shall indemnify the compensation on behalf of the respondent No.1. The petitioner is entitle for compensation with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., Accordingly, this issue answered partly in the affirmative.
ISSUE NO.3:
24. For the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner U/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with cost.
The petitioner is entitled for total compensation amount of Rs. 36,24,600/- (Rupees Thirty six lakhs twenty four thousand six hundred only) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the realization from respondents. SCCH-17 29 MVC No.458/2024
The respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the compensation amount within 60 days from the date of this order.
Out of total compensation amount awarded to the Petitioner, 50% of the same to be released in favour of petitioner through E- payment on his proper identification and remaining 50% to be kept in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank, for a period of three years, in his name.
Advocate fee is fixed at 1,500/-.
Draw up award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 16th day of January, 2025) KANCHI Digitally signed by KANCHI MAYANNA GOUTAM MAYANNA Date: 2025.01.25 15:42:38 GOUTAM +0530 (Kanchi Mayanna Goutam) XIX ADDL.JUDGE Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for petitioners:
PW.1 Sri Mubarak Ahamad @ Mubarak Pasha.
PW.2 Dr S A Somashekara.SCCH-17 30 MVC No.458/2024
List of documents marked on behalf of the petitioners:
Ex.P1 FIR Ex.P2 Complaint Ex.P3 Spot mahazar Ex.P4 IMV report Ex.P5 Wound certificate Ex.P6 Charge sheet Ex.P7 Discharge summary
Ex.P8 to 12 RC, FC, Permit, DL and policy Ex.P13 & 14 Photographs along with CD Ex.P15 Medical bills Ex.P16 Notarized copy of DL Ex.P17 Clinical notes Ex.P18 X-ray List of witnesses examined for Respondents:
- None -
List of documents marked on behalf of the Respondents:
- Nil -
KANCHI Digitally signed by KANCHI
MAYANNA GOUTAM
MAYANNA Date: 2025.01.25 15:42:44
GOUTAM +0530
(Kanchi Mayanna Goutam)
XIX ADDL.JUDGE
Court of Small Causes & MACT.,
Bengaluru.