Bangalore District Court
Y.Muniraju vs Sri Krishna on 7 April, 2016
MVC NO.7097/2009
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL
Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, SCCH-3
DATED THIS THE 7th APRIL 2016
PRESENT:
Smt.GOMATI RAGHAVENDRA
LL.M, D.I.P.R, D.C.L
VII Addl.Judge,
Court of Small Causes,
Member, MACT-3, Bengaluru.
MVC No. 7097/2009
Petitioner: Y.Muniraju
S/o Yallappa,
Aged about 37 years,
R/at Bommasandra 2nd block,
Motappa building,
Anekal Taluk,
Bangalore Dist.
(By Sri. Nagaraja, Adv.)
Vs.
MVC NO.7097/2009
Respondents: 1. Sri Krishna
S/o Krishna Raja
Puninchittaya,
Aged about 34 years,
R/at House, SF102,
No.981/23,
Balaji Nivasa, 1st stage,
1st main, 2nd stage Gokula
Extension, Bangalore. 54.
driver of the car bearing No.
KA-03-MD-4221
2. M/s Texas Instrument
India Pvt., Ltd., No.60/1,
Bagmane Tech part, Adjacent
to LRDE, Byrasandra,
C.V.Raman nagarpost,
Bangalore-560093 (Ower of
the car bearing No.KA-03-MD-
4221)
3. Bajaj Allianz General
Insurance company Ltd.,
105A/107A, Gears plaza 136,
Residency road,
Bangalore-560025
(The offended vehicle insured)
MVC NO.7097/2009
JUDGMENT
The Petitioner has filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- from the Respondent on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident.
2. On 24.5.2005 at about 2.45 p.m the petitioner and his friend traveling on the motor cycle bearing No.KA-04-Y-2783 from Bangalore towards Kunigal, when the motor cycle reached near Karadikuchamma temple, driver of the Santro car bearing No.KA-03-MD-4221 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle wherein the petitioner was proceeding, as a result of which petitioner sustained grievous injuries and he was shifted to Sanjay Gandhi accident hospital where he was treated as inpatient from 24.5.2005 to 28.5.2005. Therefore he has filed this claim petition against owner of the Santro car.
3. In response to the notice the respondents No.1 to 3 appeared before the court and respondents MVC NO.7097/2009 No.1 and 2 filed written statement and denied the entire petition averments. However admitted the issuance of insurance policy in respect of their insured vehicle and its validity as on the date of the accident. Further, contended that their liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, prays for dismissal of the petition.
4. The petitioner in order to prove the claim examined himself as PW.1, One Venugopal has been examined as PW.2, Dr.Manohar C.V., Associate Orthopedic Surgeon from Sindhi Hospital as PW.3, Agilasithan, Medical Record Officer from Sanjay Gandhi Hospital as PW.4 and got marked 20 documents, which are at Ex.P1 to P.20. The respondent No.2 got examined its finance director as RW-1 and respondent No.3 got examined its Assistant Manager as RW-2 and got marked Ex-R1 and 2.
5. Heard the arguments.
MVC NO.7097/2009
6. Upon hearing the arguments and upon consideration of the entire material on record the following points arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 24.5.2005 due to rash and negligent driving of the santro car bearing No. KA-03-MD-
4221?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so how much and from whom?
3. What order?
7. My findings are as follows Point No.1 : In affirmative Point No.2 : Partly in affirmative Point No.3 : As per final order for the following;
REASONS
8. Point No.1: Previously the petitioner appeared before the court and respondent inspite of service of summons failed to appear and as such he placed exparte. The petitioner thereafter led evidence as PW-1 and got marked MVC NO.7097/2009 documentary evidence at Ex-P1 to 17 and also examined 3 more witnesses as per PW-2 to 4. Thereafter the case was disposed off by the Hon`ble Principal Judge, MACT, Bangalore by its order dated 06-01-2011 allowed the petition in part for Rs.1,46,504/- from respondent together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. Thereafter Miscellaneous petition No.25/2014 came to be filed by the respondent No.1 praying to restore the petition its original position by providing opportunities to them to contest the same. Accordingly miscellaneous petition came to be allowed. As such this M.V.C. petition was reopened. Thereafter R.C owner and insurance company of the offending vehicle impleaded as respondent No.2 and 3. The respondent No.2 contested the petition by filing written statement wherein he has contended that 1st respondent was an employee of this respondent who purchased the car in question under car lease program. This program is an employee benefit program in the 2nd respondent company wherein MVC NO.7097/2009 employee benefits in terms of availing income tax benefit on equated monthly installments wherein employee benefits in terms of availing income tax benefit on equated monthly installments held by employee during car lease period. Under this plan when employee opts for lease program, the agreed EMI and all costs in respect of car would be reduced from employee salary and paid to the leasing company. The car insurance will be renewed by the company during lease period. The vehicle will be registered in the 2nd respondents company`s name and hypothecated to the leasing company and that the leasing company is GE transportation service limited. Upon completion of lease period leasing company will provide no objection certificate for transfer of car to the car user and not to the 2nd respondent company. The user is expected to get the ownership transferred to their name within 30 days from the receipt of NOC. In the event of any accident or damage to the car user, insurance pays the entire amount of damages including 3rd party damages or claims.
MVC NO.7097/2009
9. The insurance in respect of the car is dated 12-02-2005 and 24-01-2006. It is further stated that respondent No.1 is no more its employee as he left the company and there exists no lease arrangement and that this respondent is not in possession either original or photo copy of the RC book of the car.
10. As stated above petitioner as PW-1 had led evidence and also examined 3 more witnesses on his behalf to support his petition averments. He also got marked documents at Ex-P1 to 17. One Venugopal, Dr.Manohar C.V. Associate Orthopaedic from Sindhi hospital, Agilasithan, Medical record officer, Sanjay Gandhi hospital examined as PW-2 to 4. PW-1 has reiterated similar to petition averments in his ocular evidence who has in unequivocal terms stated that on 24-5-2005, when he was proceeding in a motor cycle bearing No.KA-05-Y-2783 along with his friend, Santro car came from opposite direction and dashed against motor cycle MVC NO.7097/2009 resulting petitioner sustained injuries. In addition he has placed reliance of FIR, charge sheet, spot sketch, IMV report which are marked at Ex-P1 to 4. IMV report at Ex-P4 discloses that accident is not due to mechanical defect. Respondents although resisted the petition, but failed to substantiate their defence pertaining to rash and negligent driving on the part of the petitioner sanctro car bearing No.KA-05-Y-2783. The evidence of petitioner both oral and documentary in so far as wrongful use of the car by its driver resulting the accident have been remained unchallenged. Therefore issue No.1 is answered in the affirmative.
11. Issue No.2:- Now the Tribunal has to ascertain quantum of compensation to be awarded to the petitioner. According to petitioner because of the accident, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries such as fracture of femur right leg, damage of patella, crush injury to right foot and lacerated wounds all over the body. Immediately he was shifted to Sanjay Gandhi MVC NO.7097/2009 accident Hospital wherein he was treated as inpatient from 24-5-2005 to 28-5-2005, who discharged with advice of follow up treatment and bed rest. It is further case of the petitioner that due to fracture of femur, right leg, non union and started lot of pain and swelling, immediately he was admitted on 15-2-2006 at P.D.Hinduja Sindhi hospital, Bangalore where he underwent major surgery of femur right leg. On perusal of Ex-P5- wound certificate issued by Sanjay Gandhi Accident Hospital wherein the petitioner was admitted as on the date of the accident and treated as inpatient upto 28.5.2005. The following injuries are shown;
1. Tenderness over right hip
2. Right thigh swelling and tender
3. Lacerated wound measuring 6X2X1 over right supra patellar pouch
4. 5X3 inch abrasion over left hyperchondrium
5. Lacerated wound over right foot X-ray showed 1) fracture neck right femur 2) fracture shaft right femur 3) fracture medial condyle right femur. Regarding the treatment it is stated in Ex.P-5 that wound debridement under MVC NO.7097/2009 L.A. was done on 25.5.2005. The discharge summary issued by Hinduja Sindhi Hospital which shows that petitioner was admitted on 15.2.2006 and discharged on 22.2.2006 in connection with the injuries sustained by him in the accident. On 16.2.2006 O.R.I.F. with interlocking (Right) femur done. On 18.2.2006 EUCA (Right) hip done. The discharge summary produced in this regard issued by Hinduja hospital discloses that the petitioner was admitted on 13-9-2010 and discharged on 16-9-2010 which is not connected to the injuries sustained in the accident.
12. In support of his contention, petitioner also examined associate Orthopaedic surgeon from Sindhi hospital as PW-3 who has deposed regarding treatment taken by the petitioner in his hospital in connection with the injuries sustained in the accident.
13. Taking all these aspect into consideration petitioner is awarded sum of Rs.40,000/- under MVC NO.7097/2009 the head injury, pain and sufferings. The petitioner has produced medical bills as per Ex-P9 amounting to Rs.20,504/-. Taking into consideration, the injuries sustained by him, same is awarded under the head medical expenses. So also an amount of Rs.12,000/- is awarded under the head attendant charges a the rate of Rs.100/- per day for 4 months and Rs.2,000/- is awarded under the head conveyance charges. The petitioner has stated that he was doing tailoring work and earning Rs.3,000/-p.m. Having regard to the cost of living at that particular point of time, necessities and other aspects, same is taken for consideration for a period of 6 months which comes to Rs.18,000/- . So awarding of Rs.18,000/- for the loss of earnings during the period of treatment would be justified.
14. As per the case of the petitioner, he suffered disability on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident. To substantiate the same, he examined the Associate Orthopaedic MVC NO.7097/2009 surgeon as PW-3 who has deposed that on account of the injuries sustained petitioner sustained permanent disability of 10% to the whole-body. The petitioner has lost his earning at the rate of Rs.300/- per month, which comes to Rs.3600/- per annum. The age of the petitioner is 37 years the multiplier applicable is 15. If the annual loss of income of Rs.3600/- is multiplied by 15 the total loss of future earning on account of disability comes to Rs.54,000/-. Accordingly the petitioner is entitle to the said amount.
15. Thus the Petitioner has been awarded compensation under the following heads from the Respondent together with interest at 6% p.a from the date of the petition till realization:
Sl. Head of compensation Amount/Rs. No. 1 Injury, Pain and suffering 40,000-00 2 Medical expenses 20,504-00 3 Attendant charges 12,000-00 4 Conveyance charges 2,000-00 5 Loss of earning during 18,000-00 the period of treatment MVC NO.7097/2009 6 Loss of future earnings on 54,000-00 account of disability 7 Total 1,46,504-00 Accordingly point No.2 is answered partly in affirmative.
16. LIABILITY:_ While discussing issue No.1 this Tribunal has reached to the conclusion that the accident in question has occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of santro car bearing reg.No.KA-03-MD-4221. According to petitioners respondents being owner and insurance company are liable to pay compensation to him. Inter-alia respondents denied their liability to pay the compensation to the petitioner. In support of such contentions, Finance Director in respondent No.2 led evidence as RW-1 and placed reliance of authorization letter and copy of insurance policy at Ex-R1 and R2 respectively. In the course of cross examination, this witness has admitted that respondent No.1 was working in his company on the date of accident and that RC pertaining to the