Bangalore District Court
Sri.C.Jagadeesh vs Smt.Sujatha on 15 December, 2022
KABC020018282011
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT BENGALURU.
(SCCH24)
DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF DECEMBER 2022
Present: Miss.B.T.ANNAPOORNESHWARI
B.A., L.L.B., L.L.M.
C/c XXII ADDL., SCJ & ACMM,
MEMBER MACT,
BENGALURU.
MVC NO.7584/2011, 7585/2011 AND 7586/2011
PETITIONER/S: Sri.C.Jagadeesh,
In MVC:7584/2011: S/o Chowdappa,
Aged about 25 years,
No.10/1, Opp: to HKS
Foods Products Factory,
Hosakerehalli, Kerekodi,
Bangalore85.
PETITIONER/S: Sri.Prashanth Babu R.,
In MVC:7585/2011: S/o Ramaiah,
Aged 25 years,
Ramaiah Grapes Garden,
Hosakerehalli, Kerekodi,
Bangalore85.
2 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
PETITIONER/S: Sri.Pratap.D.
In MVC:7586/2011: S/o Dharmashekar,
Aged about 24 years,
Ramaiah Grapes Garden,
Hosakerehalli, Kerekodi,
Bangalore85.
Permanent address:
Pratap.D.
Belur Taluk,
Hassan District.
Sakaleshpura.
(By Sri.C.Puttaswamy,
Advocate.)
V/s
RESPONDENT/S 1. Smt.Sujatha,
IN ALL THE THREE W/o Kempegowda,
CASES: No.91/1, 1st Main Road,
2nd cross, A.T.Street,
Jayanagar 6th Block,
Bangalore.
(Exparte)
2.Tata AIG General
Insurance Co.Ltd.
Legal Office,
No.69, 2nd Floor,
JP & Devi Jambukeswar
Arcade Millers road,
Bangalore52.
(Policy No.0150471544 valid
from 22.05.2008 to
21.05.2009)
(By Sri.S.Maheswara,
Advocate).
3 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
COMMON JUDGMENT
The Petitioners have filed these three petitions under
Sec.166 of Indian Motor Vehicle Act seeking compensation
for the injuries sustained by the Petitioners C.Jagadeesh,
Prashanth Babu R., and Pratap.D in a road accident dated
07.05.2009. All the petitions arisen out of a common
accident, therefore all the petitions are clubbed together as
per order dated 02.07.2012 and common evidence is
recorded and common judgment is passed.
2. The case of the Petitioners in brief is as follows:
On 07.05.2009 at about 5.15 p.m., were travelling in
a TATA Sumo bearing Reg.No.KA02C1324 from Kukke
Subramanya towards Bangalore on NH48 main road,
near Kannadikallu betta cross, Bisley forest, Hethur
Hobli, Sakleshpura Taluk, Hassan District, at that time,
the drive of said Tata sumo vehicle driven it in a high
speed in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger to
4 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
human life at a high speed and suddenly took turn
towards Vananoor Kodi Road, Sakleshpura Taluk, Hassan
District and hit to a unknown lorry which was coming
from the opposite direction and severed the vehicle
towards extreme left side of the road, as a result the driver
lost control over the vehicle and fell into the ditch, due to
the impact, the petitioners sustained grievous injuries all
over the body.
3. It is stated that, immediately, the petitioner
C.Jagadeesh (in MVC No.7584/2011) was shifted to
Adarsha Nursing home, Puttur, wherein first aid
treatment was taken and later he was shifted to Mathru
Nursing Home, Basaveshwaranagar, Bangalore, wherein
treated as an inpatient and then he was shifted to BGS
Global Hospitals, Bangalore, wherein admitted as an
inpatient from 12 days and undergone multiple surgeries.
So far he has spent Rs.2,00,000/ towards medical
expenses, food and nourishment, conveyance, attendant
5 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
charges and other incidental charges. Prior to the
accident, he was hale and healthy, was doing Mechanic
work and earning Rs.9,000/ per month and used to
contribute the entire earnings to his family and due to the
accidental injuries, he is suffering from giddiness and
acute pain and not able to do normal routine work.
4. It is stated that, immediately, the petitioner
Prashanth Babu R. (in MVC No.7585/2011) was shifted to
Adarsha Nursing home, Puttur, wherein first aid
treatment was taken and later he was shifted to Mathru
Nursing Home, Basaveshwaranagar, Bangalore, wherein
treated as an inpatient and then he was shifted to BGS
Global Hospitals, Bangalore, wherein admitted as an
inpatient from 2 days and underwent surgery. So far he
has spent Rs.2,00,000/ towards medical expenses, food
and nourishment, conveyances, attendant charges and
other incidental charges. Prior to the accident, he was
hale and healthy, was doing business and earning sum of
6 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
Rs.12,000/ per month. Due to the accidental injuries, he
is suffering from giddiness and acute pain and not able to
do normal routine work.
5. It is stated that, immediately, the petitioner
Pratap D., (in MVC No.7586/2011) was shifted to Adarsha
Nursing home, Puttur, wherein first aid treatment was
taken and later he was shifted to Mathru Nursing Home,
Basaveshwaranagar, Bangalore, wherein admitted as an
inpatient from 5 days and underwent surgery and
discharged with an advise to follow up treatment. So far
he has spent Rs.2,00,000/ towards medical expenses,
food and nourishment, conveyances, attendant charges
and other incidental charges. Prior to the accident, he
was hale and healthy, was doing business and earning
sum of Rs.10,000/ per month. Due to the accidental
injuries, he is suffering from giddiness and acute pain and
not able to do normal routine work.
7 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
6. The petitioners in all the three cases submit that
the Yesalur Police have registered a case in Cr.No.33/2009
u/Sec.279, 337 of IPC. Therefore, the Respondents are
being the RC owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle
are liable to pay the compensation to them.
7. In response to service of notice issued by this
court/Tribunal, the Respondent No.2 has appeared and
filed written statement. In spite of due service of
summons, the Respondent No.1 did not appear and hence
placed exparte.
8. The Respondent No.2 in the written statement
have denied the averments of the petitions, admitted
issuance of policy subject to its terms and conditions and
submitted that there is noncompliance of Sections 134(c)
and 158(6) of M.V.Act. It is further submitted that the
petitioners have to prove and substantiate the involvement
of insured vehicle in alleged accident and actionable
8 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
negligence on the part of the driver of insured vehicle.
There is a 6 days delay in lodging compliant and the
insured vehicle was falsely implicated by the petitioners
colluding with the insured and the police to get the
compensation by them. Further submitted that the
complaint was lodged against the driver of blue colour mini
lorry, basing on the said complaint the FIR is registered
against the driver of the blue colour mini lorry and the
jurisdictional police after thorough enquiry have filed "C"
report, stating that the blue colour mini lorry and its driver
were not traceable. The driver of the blue colour mini lorry
was rash and negligent in causing the accident and the
driver of the insured vehicle was no way responsible for the
alleged accident. Further submitted that as per the wound
certificate the petitioners were travelling in 4 wheeler (Tata
sumo) hit by a truck, it would also clearly shows that the
driver of the unknown truck was solely responsible for the
alleged accident. Further submitted that the driver of the
9 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
insured vehicle was not holding valid and effective DL
knowingly entrusted by the insured and hence there is
breach of terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore,
prayed for dismissal of the petitions against them.
9. On the basis of the above pleadings, the
following issues (common in all petitions) are framed :
ISSUES
1 Whether the petitioners prove that, they
sustained grievous injuries in RTA that
occurred on 07.05.2009 at about 5.15
p.m., while proceeding as an inmates in
TATA Sumo bearing Reg.No.KA02C1324
from Kukke Subramanya towards
Bangalore on NH48 main road, near
Kannadikallu Betta cross, Bisley forest,
Hethur Hobli, Sakkaleshpura Taluk,
Hassan District, due to rash and negligent
driving of the said Tata Sumo by its
driver?
2. Whether the petitioners prove that they
are entitled for compensation as
claimed? If so, to what amount and
from whom?
3. What Order or Award?
10. The Petitioner in MVC 7584/2011 examined
himself as PW.1 and produced documents as per Exs.P.1
10 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
to P.12. The petitioner in MVC 7585/2011 examined
himself as PW.2 and produced documents as per Exs.P13
to 20. The petitioner in MVC 7586/2011 examined
himself as PW.3 and produced documents as per Exs.P21
to P24 and P40 to 43. Dr.Mahendra S.K., Orthopedic
surgeon at Matru Nursing Home and Trauma Care centre
Hospital, is examined (in MVC No.7586/2011) as PW.4
(and later his evidence is rejected and Exs.P25 to 28
marked in his evidence his struck down as per order dated
21.07.2012). Dr.Narendra Urologist & Renal transplant
Surgeon at BGS Global Hospital, Bangalore, is examined
(in MVC 7584/2011) as PW.5 and produced documents as
per Exs.P.26 to P30 (as there are 7 xrays it ought to have
been marked from Ex.P25 but oversight in the evidence it
marked from Ex.P26 and hence the said xrays needs to be
considered marked at Exs.P25 to 30) and Dr.Arun L Naik
Consultant Neurosurgeon at BGS Global Hospital,
Bangalore, is examined (in MVC 7584/2011) as PW.6 and
11 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
produced documents as per Exs.P.44 to P46. Sri.Nagaraja
G.V., Medical Record Technician at BGS Hospital, is
examined (in MVC No.7585/2011) as PW.6 (Ought to have
given/numbered as PW.7 but by oversight numbered as
PW.6 and hence without any changes his evidence is
appreciated as per its number) and produced documents
as per Exs.P31 to 35. Dr.Mahendra S.K., Orthopedic
Surgeon at Matru Nursing Home and Trauma Care
Centre, Hospital, is examined (in MVC No.7586/2011) as
PW.7 and produced documents as per Exs.P36 to 39. On
the other side, the respondent No.2 has examined its
Assistant Manager as RW.1 and got marked documents as
per Exs.R1 to R6. Smt.T.Sumalatha Assistant Regional
Transport Officer RTO Bangalore, is examined as RW.2
and got marked driving license extract as per Ex.R7.
Smt.C.J.Meera Assistant at RTO is examined as RW.3
and got marked DL extract as per Ex.R8. Sri.Somashekar
driver in TATA sumo is examined as RW.4 and got
12 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
marked documents as per Exs.R9 and R10 and closed
their side.
11. Thereafter, after hearing arguments and
appreciation of evidence on record, this Tribunal has
dismissed all these petitions vide judgment dated
05.04.2014. Thereafter, the petitioners have preferred
appeal in M.F.A.No:4691/2014 C/W MFA No.4689/2014
(MVI) C/W MFA No.4690/2014 (MVI) and vide Judgment
dated 06.03.2020 the Hon'ble High Court remanded these
cases for fresh consideration with the following
observation at para Nos.9 to 11;
"9. ...........While doing so, the Tribunal
does not do so as in adversarial litigation. When
two vehicles are involved, in the accident, even if
one vehicle is not traceable that cannot be a
ground to dismiss the claim petition. The Tribunal
was also required to examine the composite
negligence since it is trait that when two or more
vehicles are involved compensation can be
recovered by the claimants by any one of the tort
feasers. In the present case on hand, the
Tribunal was also required to find out, in the
absence of other joint feaser not being a party,
whether the Tribunal without recording a finding
in regard to the apportionment or negligence of
13 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
the other vehicle was required to appreciate the
oral and documentary evidence and find out as to
whether the driver of the offending Tata Sumo
was also equally responsible and negligent and
thereby contributed to the accident.
10. The Tribunal has not taken note of the
specific avernments in the claim petitions wherein
all the claimants have specifically averred in the
claim petitions that the driver of the Tata Sumo
was also negligent. The Tribunal was required to
examine the averments made in the claim
petitions in regard to negligence on the part of the
driver of the Tata Sumo coupled with the evidence
of R.W.4 and also the voluminous police records
which clearly demonstrates that the driver of the
Tata Sumo also lost control and as such, the Tata
Sumo vehicle fell into the ditch. By taking note of
these material aspects the Tribunal was required
to draw appropriate inference in regard to the
manner in which the accident took place........
11. For the reasons stated supra, having
regard to the peculiar nature of the accident that
has taken place in the present case on hand, this
Court is of the view that the matter needs to be
remitted back to the Tribunal. The Tribunal is
required to appreciate the evidence of R.W.4 and
to examine whether the above said categorical
examination of R.W.4 in his examinationinchief
was good enough to primafacie establish the
manner in which the accident had occurred. The
Tribunal is also required to find out as to whether
the evidence of R.W.4 lacks basis requirement or
the same would clearly demonstrate and establish
callousness or negligence of R.W.4. The Tribunal
is required to determine the claims on the touch
stone of preponderance and probabilities without
strictly applying the provisions of the Indian
Evidence Act and also Civil Procedure Code. The
Tribunal is bound to take judicial note of the spot
14 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
where the Tata Sumo was found lying which
assumes importance in the present case on
hand...."
With the above observation the Hon'ble H.C.
remanded the matter to this Tribunal for consideration
afresh and kept open all contentions.
12. After remand of these cases, the petitioner in
MVC No.7584/2011 i.e. the PW.1 has further examined by
filing affidavit in lieu of further examination in chief and
got marked documents as per Ex.P47 to P50. The
respondent No.2 have not lead any evidence. Therefore,
matter posted for arguments.
13. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the
materials on record. The counsel for the petitioner has
relied upon following decisions; (1) 2015 ACJ SC
1441:Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd., & Ors., (2)
2020 ACJ KAR 2502:United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs.
Prabhu & Ors.. The counsel for the respondent No.2 has
already filed the decisions which are; (1) 2007 ACJ 1928
15 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
SC : Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Premlata Shukla and
others, (2) 2009 ACJ 295 : Archana Goel and Others vs.
Nav Ratan Balasia and another.
14. On hearing both sides and perusal of evidence
on record this court answers the above issues in both the
cases are as follows:
CASE NO. ISSUE NO.1 ISSUE NO. 2 ISSUE NO.3
MVC No.7584/2011 In the Partly in the As per final
Affirmative, affirmative, order, for the
following;
MVC No.7585/2011 In the Partly in the As per final
Affirmative, affirmative, Order, for the
following;
MVC No.7586/2011 In the Partly in the As per final
Affirmative, affirmative, Order, for the
following;
REASONS
15. Issue No.1 in all the three Cases:
In order to prove that the accident had occurred due
to the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the
Tata Sumo bearing Reg.No.KA02C1324 the petitioners
have examined themselves as PWs.1 to 3. The PWs.1 to
PW.3 have deposed in their separate examinationinchief
16 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
that they were travelling in a TATA Sumo bearing
Reg.No.KA02C1324 as inmates from Kukke
Subramanya towards Bangalore on NH48 main road,
near Kannadikallu betta cross, Bisley forest, Hethur
Hobli, Sakleshpura Taluk, Hassan District, at that time,
the driver of the said vehicle driven it in a high speed in
rash and negligent manner so as to endanger to human
life came at a high speed and suddenly took turn towards
Vananoor Kodi Road, Sakleshpura Taluk, Hassan District
and hit to a unknown lorry which was coming from the
opposite direction and severed the vehicle towards
extreme left side of the road, as a result the driver lost
control over the vehicle and fell into the ditch and caused
the accident, due to the impact they sustained grievous
injuries. In support of oral evidence, they have produced
documents under Exs.P.1 to P.3. The respondent No.2
have denied the case of the petitioners as false and
contended that there was negligence on the part of the
17 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
driver of the blue colour mini lorry and even then the
insured vehicle has been falsely implicated with collusion
and petitions are not maintainable against them. In the
crossexamination of P.W.1 it is brought out that the
persons who came on behalf of the driver of TATA Sumo
did inform to the doctors about the details of accident.
16. In the crossexamination of PW.2 it is brought
out that, he did not inform to the doctors about the details
of accident. In the cross examination of PW.3 nothing
worth is elicited.
17. In support of the defence the respondent No2
have examined their official as RW.1 who has deposed in
support of their defence in his examination in chief and got
marked B register extract of vehicle bearing No:KA02C
1324, DL extract, notice issued to insured with postal
receipt and C final report at Exs.R.1 to R.6. In the cross
examination it is elicited that the insured vehicle is Maxi
Cab Tourist and Transport vehicle, as on the date of policy
18 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
existed, policy covers the inmates traveling in the cab, the
petitioners were traveling in the maxi cab, as per Ex.R.3
the driver had DL to drive three wheeler cab and LMV, the
insured vehicle weight is 1700, if the laden weight is less
than 7500 kg then it is called as LMV, he has not produced
postal acknowledgement for having sent the Ex.R.4.
18. The Asst. RTO, Jayanagar, is examined as RW.2,
who has produced the DL extract of Mr.Somshekar as per
Ex.R.3 and as per that he had DL to driver three wheeler
Auto and had not DL to drive four wheeler. In the cross
examination it is elicited that LMV unladen weight will be
upto 7,500 kg, he had DL only to drive Auto but it is not
specifically mentioned as Auto, normally they will mention
Autorikshaw non transport and if the driver has badge they
will be mentioned as Auto rickshaw with dab, the Ex.R.7 is
not DL book extract and in Ex.R.7 there is no mention as
Auto.
19 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
19. The Asst. RTO, Gynanabharathi, is examined as
RW.3 who has produced Ex.R.8 DL extract of
Mr.Somashekar and as per that the said person had a DL
in respect of LMV transport cab issued by Jayanagara RTO
and it was renewed on 14.10.2011. In the cross
examination it is elicited that on 05.07.2007 the
Jayanagara RTO office had issued DL to Mr.Somashekar in
respect of LMV transport cab which was valid for 3 years,
the RTO of Gynanabharathi did issue LMV (NT) DL to the
said person and on 07.05.2009 Mr.Somashekar had valid
LMV (T) vehicle DL.
20. Further the respondent No.2 has got examined
the driver of the TATA sumo vehicle as
RW.4/Mr.Somashekar. Who has deposed that he had
valid DL to driver Autorickshaw and LMV cab issued by
Jayanagara RTO on 28.07.2002 and 05.07.2007
respectively and on 17.09.2005 he got DL in respect of LMV
car from Rajarajeshwarinagar RTO office. Further he has
20 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
denied that the accident was caused due to sole negligence
on the part of the driver of the mini lorry, the complaint
was lodged by cleaner Sampath Kumar, the alleged
accident not occurred due to his negligence, he had valid
DL as on the date of accident to drive Tata Sumo, DL
extract and DL copy are produced as per Exs.R.9 and R.10.
Further elicited that he took the passengers for tour to
Hornadu, Sringeri, Gokarna, Kolluru and while returning
the alleged accident occurred, he driven throughout night
and came to Kukke village, tourist told him to take them to
Beluru about 3.00 p.m., there is ghat section while coming
from Kukke, near the accident spot there is U turn, while
he was going in the said 'U' turn a lorry was coming from
opposite direction, seeing the said lorry he got scared and
turned his car towards left side due to which car hit to
cement divider and got turtle, immediately he jumped
outside and the inmates got injured, the left side of the car
got damaged and there is no any damages to the right side
21 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
of the car, if the lorry hit the car then the right side of car
and right of lorry should have got damages, in order to
escape from his fault he got lodged first information
through the cleaner.
21. The petitioner have not produced the first
information but produced the FIR. The Ex.P1/FIR shows
that it was lodged by one V.Sampath Kumar stating that
himself along with friends was proceeding in TATA sumo
bearing Reg.No.KA02C1324 on 07.05.2019 towards
Sakaleshwara via., Bisli route and at 5.15 p.m., when the
came near the curve of Kandikal hill at the time one blue
colour mini lorry came in rash and negligent manner from
the front side and dashed against their Tata Sumo due to
which their Tata Sumo turtle towards left side and inmates
sustained injuries and after the causing the accident the
driver of mini lorry went away from the spot without
stopping. The said Sampath Kumar is the cleaner under
the PW.4/driver of Tata Sumo. The Ex.P2/Spot and
22 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
seizure mahazar shows that after the mini lorry hit the
Tata sumo at the time the driver of Tata sumo lost control
and dashed to the left side safety wall of the road and fell
down to 12 feet deep and turtle, due to which the said
vehicle got damages to the bumper, right side doors,
radiator, left side mud guard, front side glass and on the
very same day the Tata sumo was seized by the police.
From this Ex.P.2 it is clear that the Tata sumo hit to the
side wall of bridge, turtle and got damages. The
Ex.P3/MVA report clearly shows that the Tata sumo got
damages which are; (1) Front wind screen glass and frame
damaged, Front Bonnet cover damaged, Front left side mud
guard damaged, left side head light and indicator assembly
damaged, Front Bumper damaged, both side indicators
damaged, (2) Right side both doors damaged, left side front
door damaged, (3) Top Body shape damaged (roof), and (4)
... system damaged, (propeller shaft). If the said damages
are looked into then it is clear that the Tata Sumo got
23 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
damaged when it hit to the left side safety wall of bridge
and turtle and fell 12 feet down. If at all the mini lorry hit
the Tata Sumo then definitely the right side of said lorry
and right side of the Tata Sumo could have got damages
but it is not the case here, which is also admitted by RW.4.
The evidence of RW.4 also corroborates the manner of
accident which can be very well make out from the
damages caused to the Tata Sumo. Further, if at all the
lorry hit the Tata Sumo and caused accident definitely
there would have been major collusion between both the
vehicles leading to damages to both vehicles which is not
the case here. From the evidence of RW.4 also it is clear
that as he foreseen the major collusion to avoid it he took
to the left side and this clearly shows that the RW.4 wrong
judged the things and did not judge properly while taking U
turn.
24 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
22. The Ex.P4/wound certificate shows the history as
the petitioner sustained injuries while traveling in four
wheeler hit by a truck. The respondent No.2 has produced
the Ex.R.6 and as per that police have filed 'C' final report
stating that the alleged blue colour mini lorry is not traced.
The RW.4's evidence supports the case of the petitioner and
the evidence lead by the petitioners before this Tribunal is
in corroboration and needs to be believed in support of the
case of the petitioners as the documents also speaks the
said fact only.
23. The petitioners before this Tribunal clearly deposed
that there was also negligence on the part of the driver of
the Tata Sumo. The respondent No.2's counsel contends
that as the said blue colour mini lorry was not traced
which alleged to have caused the accident and hence the
petitioners have failed to prove the rash or negligence on
the part of the insured Tata Sumo which ultimately leads
to the conclusion that the petition are not maintainable.
25 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
Admittedly the petitioners were inmates of the said Tata
sumo. As per police records the first information lodged by
one of the inmates of the Tata Sumo alleging rash or
negligent act on the part of the driver of the blue colour
mini lorry which came from the opposite side and
accordingly investigation was conducted and "C" final
report was filed as the said lorry was not traced. The said
first informant is cleaner of the PW.4 and as per his
admission the said FIS got lodged in order to side by his
fault and to avoid criminal liability which is evident from
appreciation of the evidence on record. Further, on perusal
of the the Ex.P.2/spot and seizure mahazar it is clearly
mentioned that when the Tata Sumo was taking turn in the
curve at that time in the very same curve from the opposite
side the blue colour mini lorry came and dashed to the
right side bumper of the Tata sumo, from this it is clear
that the alleged accident occurred in the curve point and
usually in the curve points the vehicles should move
26 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
cautiously in order to avoid collusion and the precaution
must be taken to take U turn in the curve carefully. From
this it clearly shows that the driver of the Tata sumo not
took required care while taking "u" turn in the curve
without judging the movements of the oncoming vehicles
and when he carelessly and negligently took turn in the
curve the opposite lorry (blue colour mini lorry) came and
hit to the right side bumper of the Tata Sumo leading to the
loss of control to the driver of the said Tata Sumo and
made the said Tata sumo turtle to its left side and hit the
side safety wall. This fact and manner of accident clearly
points out that there was not sole negligence on the part of
the driver of the blue colour mini lorry but as the accident
occurred in the curve which clearly points out that there
was composite negligence on the part of the driver of both
blue colour mini lorry and the driver of Tata Sumo which
lead to accident and the petitioners being third parties
27 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
suffered injuries due to composite negligence of both
drivers which lead to accident.
24. On perusal of police documents and appreciation
of evidence on record it is crystal clear that there was
composite negligence on the part of the drivers of the both
the vehicles and as per settled law the police documents
only got presumptive value and no conclusive proof in
themselves but the Tribunal needs to appreciate the
documents to arrive to the conclusion of occurrence of
accident for awarding just compensation on the basis of
entire evidence on placed on its record. At this stage it is
relevant to know what is difference between the composite
negligence and contributory negligence. There is a
difference between contributory and composite negligence.
In the case of contributory negligence, a person who has
himself contributed to the extent cannot claim
compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the
accident to the extent of his own negligence, where as in
28 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
the case of composite negligence, a person who has
suffered has not contributed to the accident but the
outcome of combination of negligence of two or more other
persons. As per the evidence on record it shows that there
is composite negligence where injuries have been caused to
the claimant by combined wrongful act of joint tor feasors.
In a case of accident caused by negligence of joint tort
feasors, all the persons who aid or counsel or direct or join
in committal of a wrongful act, are liable. In such case, the
liability is always joint and several. The extent of
negligence of joint tort feasors in such a case is immaterial
for satisfaction of the claim of the claimant and need not be
determined by the court. However, in case all the joint tort
feasors are before the court, it may determine the extent of
their liability for the purpose of adjusting interse equities
between them at appropriate stage. The liability of each
and every joint tort feasor vis a vis to claimant cannot be
bifurcated as it is joint and several liability. In the case of
29 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
composite negligence, apportionment of compensation
between tort feasors for making payment to the claimant is
not permissible as the claimant has the right to recover the
entire amount from the easiest targets/solvent defendant.
In composite negligence, apportionment of compensation
between two tort feasors is not permissible. Where two or
more people by their independent breaches of duty to the
claimant cause him to suffer distinct injuries, no special
rules are required, for each tort feasor is liable for the
damage which he caused and only for that damage.
Where, however, two or more breaches of duty by different
persons cause the claimant to suffer a single, indivisible
injury the position is more complicated. The law in such a
case is that the claimant is entitled to sue all or any of
them for the full amount of his loss, and each is said to be
jointly and severally liable for it. If the claimant sues
defendant A but not B and C, it is open to A to seek
contribution from B and C in respect of their relative
30 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
responsibility but this is a matter among A, B and C and
does not affect the claimant. This means that special rules
are necessary to deal with the possibilities of successive
actions in respect of that loss and of claims for
contribution or indemnity by one tort feasor against the
others.
25. In Palghat Coimbatore Transport Co. Ltd. Vs.
Narayanan, [ILR (1939) Mad. 306] it has been held that
where injury is caused by the wrongful act of two parties,
the plaintiff is not bound to a strict analysis of the
proximate or immediate cause of the event to find out
whom he can sue. Subject to the rules as to remoteness
of damage, the plaintiff is entitled to sue all or any of the
negligent persons and it is no concern of his whether
there is any duty of contribution or indemnity as between
those persons, though in any case he cannot recover on
the whole more than his whole damage. He has a right to
31 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
recover the full amount of damages from any of the
defendants.
26. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. P.A. Vergis
and Ors. [1991 (1) ACC 226], it has been observed that
the case of composite negligence is one when accident
occurs and resulting injuries and damages flow without
any negligence on he part of the claimant but as a result
of the negligence on the part of two or more persons, In
such a case, the Tribunal should pass a composite decree
against owners of both vehicles.
27. In United India Fire & Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. V.
Varghese & Ors. [1989 ACJ 472] it has been observed that
in a case of composite negligence, the injured has option
to proceed against all or any of the joint tortfeasors.
Therefore, the insurer cannot take a defence that action is
not sustainable as the other joint tort feasors have not
been made parties. In Smt.Kundan Bala Vora & Anr. Vs.
32 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
State of U.P. [AIR 1983 All. 409] where a collision between
bus and car took place. Negligence of both the drivers
was found. It was held that they would be jointly and
severally liable to pay the whole damages.
28. The Full Bench of our Hon'ble High Court in
Karantaka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore
and etc. Vs. Arun alias Aravind and etc. [AIR 2004 Kar.
149] it is held that in a case of composite negligence and
the liability of fort feasors was joint and several. Hence,
even if there is nonimpleadment of one of tor feasors, the
claimant was entitled to full compensation quantified by
the Tribunal, referring to the decision of a Division Bench
of the Gujarat High Court in Hiraben Bhaga & Ors. Vs.
Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [1982 ACJ
9Supp.) 414 (Guj)] in which it has been laid down that it
is entirely the choice of the claimant whether to implead
both the joint tort feasors or either of them. On failure of
the claimant to implead one of the joint tort feasors,
33 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
contributory liability cannot be fastened upon the
claimant to the extent of the negligence of nonimpladed
joint tort feasors. It is for the joint tort feasors made liable
to pay compensation to take proceedings to settle the
equities as against other joint tort feasors who had not
been impleaded. It is open to the impleaded joint tort
feasor to sue the other wrong does after the decree or
award is given to realize to the extent of others liability.
29. In full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in
Smt.SushilaBhadoriya & Ors. V. M.P. State Road
Transport Corpn. & Anr. [2005(1) MPLJ 372] has also laid
down that in case of composite negligence, the liability is
joint and several and it is open to implead the driver,
owner and the insurer one of the vehicles to recover the
whole amount from one of the joint tort feasors. As to
apportionment also, it has been observed that both the
vehicles will be jointly and severally liable to pay the
compensation. Once the negligence and compensation is
34 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
determined, it is not permissible to apportion the
compensation between the two as it is difficult to
determine the apportionment in the absence of the drivers
of both the vehicles appearing in the witness box. There,
there cannot be apportionment of the claim between the
joint tort feasors. The relevant portion of decision of Full
Bench is extracted hereunder:
"When injury is caused as a result of
negligence of two joint tortfeasors, claimant is not
required to lay his finger on the exact person
regarding his proportion of liability. In the absence
of any evidence enabling the Court to distinguish the
act of each joint tortfeasor, liability can be fastened
on both the tortfeasors jointly and in case only one
of the joint tortfeasors is impleaded as party, then
entire liability can be fastened upon one of the joint
tortfeasors. If both the joint tortfeasors are before
the court and there is sufficient evidence regarding
the act of each tortfeasors and it is possible for the
Court to apportion the claim considering the exact
nature of negligence by both the joint tortfeasors, it
may apportion the claim. However, it is not
necessary to apportion the claim when it is not
possible to determine the ratio of negligence of joint
tortfeasors. In such cases, joint tortfeasors will be
jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
On the same principle, in the case of joint tort
feasors where the liability is joint and several, it is
35 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
the choice of the claimant to claim damages from the
owner and driver and insurer of both the vehicles or
anyone of them. If claim is made against one of
them, entire amount of compensation on account of
injury or death can be imposed against the owner,
driver and insurer of that vehicle as their liability is
joint and several and the claimant can recover the
amount from any one of them. There can not be
apportionment of claim of each tortfeasors in the
absence of proper and cogent evidence on record
and it is not necessary to apportion the claim."
30. The counsel for the petitioners has relied upon
the decision of Hon'ble S.C. in Khenyei Vs. New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. And Others which is referred above is
aptly application to the present case and in the said
decision the ratio held is as under;
" .......What emerges from the aforesaid
discussion is as follows: (i) In the case of
composite negligence, plaintiff/claimant is
entitled to sue both or any one of the joint
tortfeasors and to recover the entire
compensation as liability of joint tortfeasors is
joint and several. (ii) In the case of composite
negligence, apportionment of compensation
between two tortfeasors visavis the
plaintiff/claimant is not permissible. He can
recover at his option whole damages from any of
them. (iii) In case all the joint tortfeasors have
been impleaded and evidence is sufficient, it is
36 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
open to the court/Tribunal to determine inter se
extent of composite negligence of the drivers.
However, determination of the extent of
negligence between the joint tortfeasors is only
for the purpose of their inter se liability so that
one may recover the sum from the other after
making whole of payment to the
plaintiff/claimant to the extent it has satisfied
the liability of the other. In case both of them
have been impleaded and the
apportionment/extent of their negligence has
been determined by the court/Tribunal in main
case, one joint tortfeasor can recover the amount
from the other in the execution proceedings. (iv)
It would not be appropriate fro the court/Tribunal
to determine the extent of composite negligence of
the drivers of two vehicles in the absence of
impleadment of other joint tortfeasors. In such a
case, impleaded joint tortfeasor should be left, in
case he so desires, to sue the other joint
tortfeasor in independent proceedings after
passing of the decree or award......"
The above ration is also applied and held in the second
decision relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners
which is referred above and it is also aptly applicable to
the present facts and circumstances of the case.
31. The other decisions relied upon by the counsel
for the petitioners which are, (1) 2011 ACJ 1475 : Somari
37 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
Devi and others vs. Ragwar Singh and others, (2) ILR 2001
KAR 493 : Smt.Kaushnuma Begum and Others Vs. New
India Assurance Co. Ltd., and others., (3) 2004 ACJ 249 :
KSRTC Vs. Arun, (4) 2011 ACJ 1613 : Parameshwari vs.
Amir Chand and others, are also applicable to the present
case. I have perused the decisions relied upon by the
counsel for the respondent No.2 which are, (1) 2007 ACJ
1928 SC : Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Premlata
Shukla and others, (2) 2009 ACJ 295: Archana Goel and
Others Vs. Nav Ratan Balasia and Another, (3) 2012 Kant
M.A.C. 200 (Kant) : ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.
Ltd. Vs. Lakshmamma and another, (4) 2009 ACJ 293 :
Gurappa Vs. Goudappagouda and another, and with due
respect to the said decision I am of the opinion that the
facts and circumstances of those cases and this case are
different and hence not applicable. Therefore, as per the
discussion made above, in the present case upon
considering the police documents and oral evidence
38 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
placed on record as it is clear that the right side and front
side of the Tata Sumo got damaged, from this it is clear
that there was composite negligence on the part of the
driver of Tata Sumo and it is not a case of contributory
negligence on the part of the Tata sumo and is is also not
the case of sole negligence on the part of the blue colour
mini lorry. Therefore, the contention of the insurance
company that there was complete sole negligence on the
part of the blue colour mini lorry cannot be considered as
this is a case of composite negligence. From the evidence
and the materials discussed above it is clear that there is
composite negligence on the part of both vehicles i.e. Tata
Sumo and blue colour mini lorry which was not traced
and as per well settled principles of law the claimants can
sue either of them and hence the present cases of the
claimants are sustainable against the respondents as they
are jointly and severally liable to compensate the
claimants for the accident caused due to their composite
39 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
negligence. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.1 in all the
three cases are in the Affirmative.
32. Issue No.2 in MVC No.7584/2011:
It is the further case of the Petitioner -
Sri.C.Jagadeesh that due to the accident, he has
sustained grievous injuries and it has caused him
permanent disability and hence he is unable to do his
earlier work/occupation. The Petitioner in this regard has
entered into witness box and deposed that due to the
accidental injuries, he is suffering from permanent
disability. Apart from that, he has produced the wound
certificate as per Ex.P.4. As per Ex.P.4, the Petitioner has
sustained severe tenderness on lower backfracture of
lumbar vertebra with cord compression needing operating
fixation, Tenderness on pubic area and pelvismulti
segmental fracture of pelvic bone, External genitalia injury
with bleedingrupture of urethra, POP over left ankle
fracture calcaeum and the doctor opined that injuries are
40 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
grievous in nature. As per Ex.P.5 Reference letter of
Matru Nursing Home and Trauma Care Center, Bangalore,
it shows that the petitioner sustained unstable pelvic
fracture and acute L1 vertebral wedge compression
fracture, urethral injury, suprapubic cystostomy done. The
Ex.P.6/Discharge summary of BGS Global Hospitals,
shows that the petitioner admitted as an inpatient from
01.02.2012 to 01.02.2012 for one day and diagnosed SPC
catheter Block and underwent urethroplasty on 27.10.2009
and in the present hospital on 01.12.2012 underwent
Cystoscopy under LA, Nephroscope was passed and the
foley's removed. No.16F foley's kept as SPC.
Ex.P.7/scanning report of Pelvis & both hip joints with
bone 3D. Ex.P47/Surgical Discharge summary issued by
BGS Global Hospitals wherein the petitioner was admitted
as an inpatient from 20.04.2021 and discharged on the
same day. The petitioner got examined Dr.Narendra as
PW.5 and produced documents at Exs.P26 to 30 and also
41 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
got examined Dr.Arun L Naik as PW.6 and produced
documents at Exs.P.44 to 46. This court while considering
the Issue No.1 has already come to the conclusion that the
accident occurred due to the rash or negligent driving of
the drivers of both vehicles. Therefore, the Petitioner is
entitled for compensation from the Respondents.
Disability:
33. In the chiefexamination, the PW.5 has deposed
that, the petitioner gave history of RTA on 07.05.2009 and
he initially treated at Mathru Nursing Home and Trauma
Care Centre, Bangalore, and then he came and admitted in
our hospital on 10.05.2009 and diagnosed wedge
compression fracture of L1, Vertebra with significant cord
compression, Multi segmental fracture of pelvic bone and
Urethral injury at Bladder neck and underwent D12 to L2
L3 pedicle screw fixation under GA. D12L1 laminectomy
done. SPC catheler is insitu for further management and
discharged on 22.02.2009 and surgery is for deferred 5
42 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
months with an advised for bed rest to his pelvic bone
fracture. PW.5 further deposed that the petitioner was re
admitted on 26.10.2009 and on examination he had
complete rupture of urethra at bladder neck area and
underwent endtoend urethraplasty on 27.10.2009 and
discharged on 03.11.2009 with advice and the petitioner
was again readmitted on 01.02.2009 for day care
treatment with complaints of mild erectile dysfunction and
recurrent stricture urethra. PW.5 further deposed that on
examination, he found reoccurrence of stricture urethra
and erectile dysfunction and the patient suffers disability of
his marital life to the extent of 80%. In the cross
examination of PW.5 it is brought out that, there is no
mention in the case sheet about the urological problems
found on 10.05.2009, on 03.11.2009 the petitioner
admitted for urological problems, one xray reports is
available to know about the urological problems arisen
between 07.05.2009 and 03.11.2009, as per the say of
43 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
petitioner is came to know the petitioner is unmarried, he
has not mentioned the last date on which he given
treatment for urological problems, he has not produced the
documents pertaining to the examination of disability in
July2012, he has not mentioned the guidelines for
assessing urological disability and witness admits that the
urological problems cannot be treated as whole body
disabilities.
34. Dr.Arun L. Naik Consultant NeuroSurgeon at
BGS Global Hospital, Bangalore, is examined as PW.6, who
has deposed that the petitioner was admitted to BGS
Global Hospital on 10.05.2009 with a history of alleged
RTA on 07.05.2009 and did sustain injury to his head,
back, hip and lower abdomen and initially treated at
Mathru Nursing Home and Trauma Care Centre,
Bangalore, before shifting to their hospital and on arrival at
their hospital, he was conscious, alter and oriented, no
focal neurological deficits. The PW.6 has further deposed
44 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
that he had pelvic bone fracture with urethral injury and
tenderness over his back area and his MRI scan showed L
1 vertebral body fracture with spinal cord compression and
underwent surgery for his spine bone fracture and on
12.5.2009 he underwent D12L1 laminectomy and D12 to
L2 and L3 pedicle screw fixation and his pelvic fracture
was managed by orthopedician conservatively and post op
xray of lumbar spine revealed optimal implant position
and his condition improved gradually and discharged on
22.05.2009 and treated him many times at outpatient at
BGS Global Hospital and gradual recovery in his
neurological condition. The PW.6 further deposed that the
petitioner consulted him on 13.07.2012 and he complains
back pain and the wound had healed well and did not have
any residual neurological deficits and was able to walk
without support and the petitioner suffered permanent
spinal disability to the whole body is 20%. The PW.6 has
45 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
not turned up for crossexamination and hence his
evidence has no evidentiary value.
35. On perusal of the evidence, the PW.5 deposed
that the petitioner is suffering from whole body disability of
80% affecting his marital life and in his crossexamination
the PW.5 admitted that the said disability cannot be
considered as whole body disability. The PW.6/Dr.Arun
L.Naik has deposed that the petitioner has whole body
spinal disability at 20% but as he has not tendered himself
for crossexamination and hence his evidence cannot be
considered. Therefore, considering the nature of injuries
and the treatment taken and the age of the petitioner the
whole body disability assessed by the PW.5 appears to be
on very higher side and the evidence of PW.5 does not
focus as to how the said disability affects the avocation of
the petitioner. However, the disability deposed by the PW.5
is permanent and therefore, considering the injuries
sustained by the petitioner and the treatment he
46 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
underwent this Tribunal is of the opinion that the
petitioner is suffering from whole body disability of 15%.
Monthly income:
36. According to the Petitioner, he was doing
mechanic and agricultural work and earning a sum of
Rs.12,000/ per month. In this regard, the Petitioner has
produced Training certificate, certificate and RTC as per
Exs.P.10 to 12. As per Exs.P.10 and P.11 the petitioner
got Honda Service Training Course, but they are sufficient
to ascertain the income of the petitioner. The Ex.P.12 is
the RTC but it is in the name of his father. Further, to
substantiate the income the Petitioner he has not
produced any relevant documents to prove that he was
getting income as claimed from doing Agriculture,
Mechanic such as the bank statement, agriculture
produce sale bills or receipts etc., to ascertain his income.
Therefore, the version of the Petitioner that he was
earning a sum of Rs.12,000/ per month is not
47 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
acceptable. Under these circumstances, this court has to
take the notional income of the Petitioner for calculating
the loss of future income. At the time of accident the
Petitioner was aged about 25 years as could be make out
from Ex.P.4/wound certificate. He was hale and healthy
before the accident. The accident took place in the year
2009 and therefore the age of the petitioner as on the date
of accident needs to be considered as 25 years. In
absence of specific evidence and taking judicial notice of
hike in the cost of living and also relying the decision of
Hon'ble H.C. in the case of Sumangala & Others and
Ramanagouda &Anr., in MFA No:202534/2019(MVC)
wherein the notified notional income chart of the
Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is considered for
fixing the notional income and taken judicial notice of the
said notional income chart of KSLSA and accordingly the
monthly notional income of the petitioner is considered as
48 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
Rs.5,000/ per month. As such, Petitioner is entitled for
the following compensation:
i) PAIN AND SUFFERING:
After the accident, the Petitioner was taken to BGS
Global Hospitals, wherein treated as an inpatient for one
day as per Ex.P.6/Discharge summary and again admitted
in the same hospital from 10.05.2009 to 22.05.2009 as per
Ex.P44/case sheet. The Ex.P.47/discharge summary is
not considered as the PW.1 in his further cross
examination admitted that therein the history mentioned
as RTA two months back. Therefore, considering the
nature of injuries and duration of treatment he has
underwent, the Petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.45,000/
under this head.
ii) MEDICAL EXPENSES:
The Petitioner stated that, he has incurred
Rs.5,00,000/ towards medical expenses and other
49 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
expenses. In this regard, he has produced 133 medical
bills only for a sum of Rs.2,74,556/ as per Ex.P.8,
Inpatient final bill (duplicate copy) for a sum of
Rs.31,565/ as per Ex.P.48, Inpatient receipts for a sum of
Rs.20,000/ as per Ex.P.49 and Outpatient cash bills for a
sum of Rs.1,770/ as per Ex.P.50. In the cross examination
of PW.1 he clearly admitted that in Ex.P.47/discharge
summary the history is shown as RTA about two months
back, on 7.2.2021 he had undergone surgery for the
injuries sustained due to said accident. From this it is
clear that the petitioner met with another accident two
months back to the date of Ex.P.47 and hence the Exs.P.47
to 50 are not considered for awarding compensation as this
case is relating to the accident occurred in the year 2009.
Therefore, the petitioner in total only entitled for a sum of
Rs.2,74,556/ under the head of Medical Expenses.
50 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
iii) LOSS OF INCOME DURING LAID UP PERIOD:
As mentioned above the petitioner has sustained
grievous injuries and underwent treatment. After the
accident, the Petitioner was taken treatment in the above
mentioned hospitals. Therefore, considering the nature of
injuries and the duration of treatment it can be said that
the Petitioner has required at least two months time for
recovering from the injuries sustained by him. Hence, he
is entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/ under this head.
iv) LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME:
In so far as age of the Petitioner is concerned, the
Ex.P.4 is considered as already discussed above. As per
this document his age was 25 years as on the date of
accident. The Respondents have not placed any contrary
document. Therefore, as on the date of the accident the
Petitioner's age is considered as 25 years. As per Sarala
Verma's case the appropriate multiplier applicable to his
51 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
age is 18. Therefore, the Petitioner is entitled a sum of
Rs.1,62,000/ (Rs.5,000/ x 12 x 18 x 15%=
Rs.1,62,000/) under this head.
v) LOSS OF FUTURE AMENITIES AND
HAPPINESS:
On account of the accident the Petitioner has
sustained grievous injuries as mentioned above. As per the
discussion made above, the Petitioner is suffering from
15% of whole body permanent disability. The Petitioner is
aged about 25 years. The Petitioner has to suffer this
disability throughout his life. This would certainly cause
him to lose lot of amenities and comforts in life. Therefore,
considering the age and nature of injuries sustained by the
Petitioner a sum of Rs.17,000/ is awarded under this
head.
52 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
vi) ATTENDANT, CONVEYANCE, FOOD AND
NOURISHMENT CHARGES:
The Petitioner, in the accident, has sustained grievous
injuries and taken treatment in the said hospitals as
mentioned above and also stated that he incurred
Rs.50,000/ towards attendant, conveyance, food and
nourishment expenses. But, he has not produced any bills
or examined any witness in this regard. During said period
he would have certainly spent considerable amount on his
conveyance, attendant charges, food and nourishment. For
this, he is entitled a sum of Rs.17,000/ under this head.
vii) MARRIAGE PROSPECTS:
As per the evidence of PW.5 the marital life of the
petitioner will be affected due to reoccurrence of stricture
urethra and erectile dysfunction. Therefore, considering
the said disability the petitioner is awarded a sum of
Rs.60,000/ under this head.
53 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
37. The Petitioner is entitled for the compensation
under the following heads:
1. Pain & suffering Rs.45,000/
2. Medical expenses Rs.2,74,556/
3. Loss of future income Rs.1,62,000/
4. Loss of income during laid up period Rs.10,000/
5. Loss of future amenities and happiness Rs.17,000/
6. Attendant, conveyance, food and Rs.17,000/
nourishment charges
7. Marriage prospects Rs.60,000/
TOTAL Rs.5,85,556/
If the total compensation is rounded off then it comes to
Rs.5,85,600/. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for total
compensation of Rs.5,85,600/. Accordingly issue No.2
in MVC 7584/2011 is answered partly in the
Affirmative.
38. ISSUE No.2 in MVC.No.7585/2011:
The PW.2 stated that, on account of the accidental
injuries he is suffering from severe pain in the left elbow
and thigh, cannot carry or lift weight in left hand,
difficulty to attend to his normal routine activities, not
54 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
able to carry out his business and agriculture work, since
the injuries are caused permanent disability. The
Petitioner to substantiate that there is loss of income due
to he is suffering from the permanent disability has not
examined any doctor who has got expertise in this field or
lead any evidence in this regard. He also has not placed
disability certificate issued by the competent person.
Therefore, the version of the Petitioner that the injuries
sustained in the accident have caused him permanent
disability is not acceptable and under these
circumstances the petitioner is not entitled for
compensation under the head of loss of future income due
to disability. However, it is pertinent to note that, the
wound certificate produced as per Ex.P.13 discloses that,
he has sustained swelling and tenderness of left elbow
fracture of Radial head treated conservatively, Small
abrasion with soft tissue injury over left lower back,
Tenderness of left side of trunk and tender left thighNo
55 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
bony injury - but degloving type of injury requiring
diagnosis, and opinied that injuries are simple in nature.
The Ex.P.14/discharge card issued Adarsha Nursing
Home, Puttur, it shows that the petitioner was admitted
as an inpatient and discharged in the same day,
Ex.P.15/Reference letter issued by Matru Nursing Home
and Trauma Care Centre, Ex.P.16/Scan report, Ex.P.17
and P.18/Discharge summaries issued by BGS Global
Hospitals that the petitioner admitted from 10.05.2009 to
12.05.2009 and diagnosed Fracture head of radius
(UNDISPLACED) contusion left hip joint and again he was
admitted in the said hospital from 20.05.2009 to
25.05.2009 and diagnosed internal degloving injury left
thigh and hip and shows that the condition of the
petitioner was stable at the time of discharge. The
petitioner is also examined Mr.Nagaraja G.V., Medical
record Technician at B.G.S Hospital, Bengaluru, who
produced authorization letter, case sheet, OPD record, X
56 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
ray and CT scan films as per Exs.P31 to P35. The said
witness only produced the medical documents of the
petitioner. Therefore, the Petitioner is entitled for
compensation of Rs.30,000/ under the heads of Pain
and Suffering. The Petitioner has stated that he has
spent Rs.3,00,000/ towards medical, conveyance,
nourishment and other incidental charges etc.. In this
regard he has produced 36 medical bills for sum of
Rs.1,06,160/ at Ex.P.19. There is no contrary to these
bills from the Respondent. As such, the petitioner is
entitled for total amount of Rs.1,06,160/ under the
heads of medical expenses. As mentioned above the
Petitioner was admitted at Adarsha Nursing Home, Puttur,
and discharged in the same day, due to severe injuries he
shifted BGS Global Hospitals wherein admitted from
10.05.2009 to 12.05.2009 and again admitted as an
inpatient to the said hospital from 20.05.2009 to
25.05.2009 and discharged with an advice to take
57 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
complete bed rest. During that time, certainly he would
have spent some amount towards conveyance,
transportation and for other incidental expenses.
Therefore, the Petitioner is entitled for a sum of
Rs.20,000/ towards conveyance, transportation and
other incidental expenses. In total, the compensation
comes to Rs.1,56,160/ and if it is rounded off it comes to
Rs.1,56,200/. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for
total compensation of Rs.1,56,200/. Accordingly issue
No.2 in MVC 7585/2011 is answered partly in the
Affirmative.
39. Issue No.2 in MVC No.7586/2011:
It is the further case of the Petitioner - Sri.Pratap D.
that due to the accident, he is suffering from severe pain in
the right leg, cannot walk for long distance, cannot stand
for long time, cannot climb stairs, difficulty to squat or sit
cross leg and he finding difficulty to attend to his normal
58 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
routine activities and not able to carry out his as telecom
engineer and he was forced to take long leave as a result he
was terminated from his job and it has caused him
permanent disability and hence he is unable to do his
earlier work/occupation. The Petitioner in this regard has
entered into witness box and deposed that due to the
accidental injuries, he is suffering from permanent
disability. Apart from that, he has produced the wound
certificate as per Ex.P.40. As per Ex.P.40, the Petitioner
has sustained fracture both bones (Rt) leg and the doctor
opined that injury is grievous in nature. As per
Ex.P.21/Discharge card at Adarsha Hospital, Puttur,
wherein admitted as an inpatient and discharged on the
same day. Ex.P.22 and 41/ Discharge summaries at Matru
Nursing Home and Trauma Care Centre wherein admitted
as an inpatient from 08.05.2009 to 13.05.2009 and
diagnosis fracture both bones right leg and underwent
closed interlocking nail to tibia and rush nailing to fibula
59 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
done under SAB on 09.05.2009. The petitioner firstly got
examined Dr.Mahendra S.K., as PW.4 but later his
evidence got discarded by order dated 21.07.2012 and
similar witness again examined as PW.7 and produced
documents at Exs.P.36 to 39. This court while considering
the Issue No.1 has already come to the conclusion that the
accident occurred due to the rash or negligent driving of
the drivers of both vehicles. Therefore, the Petitioner is
entitled for compensation from the Respondents.
Disability:
40. In the chiefexamination, the PW.7 has deposed
that, the petitioner gave history of RTA on 07.05.2009
while coming back from Kukkesubramanya Temple in a
Tata sumo bearing Reg.No.KA02C1324 at Bisleghat was
taken to Puttur Hospital, from there brought to this
hospital for further management and did sustain fracture
both bones right leg with head injury with Zygomatic region
abrasion and abreactions over right side of forehead and
60 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
underwent on 09.05.2009 interlocking nail to tibia and
rush nailing to fibula done SAB and discharged on
13.05.2009 with an advise. Further PW.7 deposed that
there was delayed union in tibial fracture, hence he was
taking for Dynamistaion of tibial nail; removal of rush pin
from fibula and bone grafting for tibial fracture done on
02.10.2010 and fractures have healed now and the
petitioner complains of pain around right knee and right
ankle after walking long distance and standing for long
hours and xrays taken shows healed fractures, malunited
fibular fracture and he examined clinical is suggestive of
fracture disease around right ankle and he is advised to
undergo surgery for removal of implants, which would cost
him around Rs.32,000/ and the petitioner has suffered
permanent disability to his right lower limb is at 10% and
to the whole body is 5%. In the cross examination of PW.7
it is brought out that he has treated the petitioner, the
1/4th of the 10% needs to be considered as disability.
61 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
Therefore, considering the nature of injuries and the
treatment taken and the age of the petitioner whole body
disability assessed by the PW.7 appears to be on higher
side and therefore, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the
petitioner is suffering from whole body disability of 3%
only.
Monthly income
41. According to the Petitioner, he was working as a
telecom engineer at Telecom Department and getting a
monthly salary of Rs.10,000/ per month. But he has not
produced any documents such as receipts or the bank
statement or lead evidence of employer or any witness to
ascertain his income. Therefore, the version of the
Petitioner that he was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/ per
month from telecom engineer job, is not acceptable.
Therefore, the notional income needs to be considered. At
the time of accident the Petitioner was aged about 24
years as could be make out from Ex.P.40/wound
62 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
certificate of the petitioner. The accident took place in the
year 2009. In absence of specific evidence for income,
therefore by taking judicial notice of the notified notional
income chart approved by the KSLSA the monthly
notional income of the petitioner is considered as
Rs.5,000/ per month. As such, Petitioner is entitled for
the following compensation:
i) PAIN AND SUFFERING:
After the accident, the Petitioner was taken to
Adarsha Nursing Home, Puttur, wherein treated as an in
patient for one day as per Ex.P.21/Discharge card and
again admitted Matru Hospital from 08.05.2009 to
13.05.2009 for 7 days as per Ex.P22 and 41/Discharge
summary. Therefore, considering the nature of injuries
and duration of treatment he has underwent, the Petitioner
is awarded a sum of Rs.35,000/ under this head.
63 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
ii) MEDICAL EXPENSES:
The Petitioner stated that, he has incurred
Rs.2,00,000/ towards medical expenses and other
expenses. In this regard, he has produced 4 medical bills
only for a sum of Rs.4,710/ and 34 Inpatient medical bills
amounting of Rs.1,06,160/ as per Ex.P24 and 43. There
is no contrary to this document from the Respondent No.2.
Therefore, the petitioner in total entitled for a sum of
Rs.1,10,870/ under the head of Medical Expenses.
iii) LOSS OF INCOME DURING LAID UP PERIOD:
As mentioned above the petitioner has sustained
grievous injuries and underwent treatment. After the
accident, the Petitioner was taken treatment in the above
mentioned hospitals. Therefore, considering the nature of
injuries and the duration of treatment it can be said that
the Petitioner has required at least one month time for
recovering from the injuries sustained by him. Hence, he
is entitled for a sum of Rs.5,000/ under this head.
64 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
iv) LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME:
In so far as age of the Petitioner is concerned, the
Ex.P.40 is considered as already discussed above. As per
this document his age was 24 years as on the date of
accident. The Respondents have not placed any contrary
document. Therefore, as on the date of the accident the
Petitioner's age is considered as 24 years. As per Sarala
Verma's case the appropriate multiplier applicable to his
age is 18. Therefore, the Petitioner is entitled a sum of
Rs.32,400/ (Rs.5,000/ x 12 x 18 x 3%= Rs.32,400/)
under this head.
v) LOSS OF FUTURE AMENITIES AND
HAPPINESS:
On account of the accident the Petitioner has
sustained grievous injuries as mentioned above. As per the
discussion made above, the Petitioner is suffering from 3%
of whole body permanent disability. The Petitioner is aged
about 24 years. The Petitioner has to suffer this disability
65 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
throughout his life. This would certainly cause him to lose
lot of amenities and comforts in life. Therefore, considering
the age and nature of injuries sustained by the Petitioner a
sum of Rs.15,000/ is awarded under this head.
vi) ATTENDANT, CONVEYANCE, FOOD AND
NOURISHMENT CHARGES:
The Petitioner, in the accident, has sustained grievous
injuries and taken treatment in the said hospitals as
mentioned above and also stated that he incurred
Rs.25,000/ towards attendant, conveyance, food and
nourishment expenses. But, he has not produced any bills
or examined any witness in this regard. During said period
he would have certainly spent considerable amount on his
conveyance, attendant charges, food and nourishment. For
this, he is entitled a sum of Rs.15,000/ under this head.
vii) FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES:
As per the version of the PW.7, the Petitioner needs
another surgery for removal of implants which cost is
66 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
estimated around Rs.32,000/. Therefore, looking to the
earlier treatment cost and nature of injuries and cross
examination of PW.7, it appears it would be justifiable if
an amount of Rs.15,000/ is awarded to the Petitioner
under this head. Therefore the Petitioner is awarded a
sum of Rs.15,000/ under this head.
42. The Petitioner is entitled for the compensation
under the following heads:
1. Pain & suffering Rs.35,000/
2. Medical expenses Rs.1,10,870/
3. Loss of future income Rs.32,400/
4. Loss of income during laid up period Rs.5,000/
5. Loss of future amenities and happiness Rs.15,000/
6. Attendant, conveyance, food and Rs.15,000/
nourishment charges
7. Future medical expenses Rs.15,000/
TOTAL Rs.2,28,270/
If it is rounded off it comes to Rs.2,28,300/. Therefore,
the petitioner is entitled for total compensation of
Rs.2,28,300/. Accordingly issue No.2 in MVC
7586/2011 is answered partly in the Affirmative.
67 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
LIABILITY (IN ALL CASES):
43. Though the respondent No.4 has lead evidence of
RWs.1 to 4 which is as narrated above but failed to prove
its defence and even the defence that there is any breach
of policy as contended as it is established from the
evidence of RTOs that the driver had valid DL as on the
date of accident. Therefore, the Respondent Nos.1 and 2
being the RC owner and the insurer of the offending
vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation
to the Petitioners. However, as the Petitioner has proved
the existence of insurance policy, the Respondent No.2 -
insurer has got primary liability to compensate the
Petitioners. The Petitioner in MVC No.7584/2011 have
claimed for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/ but he is entitled of
Rs.5,85,600/. The petitioner in MVC No.7585/2011 has
claimed Rs.8,00,000/ but he is entitled for
Rs.1,56,200/. In the same manner in MVC
No.7586/2011 the petitioner has claimed Rs.10,00,000/
68 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
but he is entitled only for a sum of Rs.2,28,300/. The
said compensation carries interest @ 6% per annum.
Therefore, the petitions needs to be allowed in part.
Accordingly Issue No.2 in all the three cases are held
partly in the affirmative.
44. Issue No.3 in all the three cases:
In view of above answers to the above issues, this
Tribunal proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
The petitions in MVC No.7584/2011, 7585/2011 and 7586/2011 are hereby allowed in part with cost.
The Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Petitioners. However, the Respondent No.2 being the insurer is liable to indemnify the 69 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011 SCCH - 24 Respondent No.1 and directed to deposit the compensation amount to the Petitioners within 60 days from today. The Petitioner in MVC. No.7584/2011 is entitled for total compensation of Rs.5,85,600/ (Rupees Five Lakhs Eighty Five Thousand and Six Hundred only) along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing till the date of depositing the award amount.
On deposit of compensation and interest, 20% amount shall be deposited in the name of the Petitioner in any N/S bank for a period of 3 years and remaining amount shall be released in the name of the Petitioner with proper identification and due acknowledgment as per Rules. 70 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24 The Petitioner in MVC. No.7585/2011 is entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,56,200/ (Rupees One Lakhs Fifty Six Thousand and Two Hundred only) along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing till the date of depositing the award amount.
On deposit of compensation and interest, entire amount shall be released in the name of the Petitioner with due acknowledgment and proper identification as per Rules.
The Petitioner in MVC. No.7586/2011 is entitled for total compensation of Rs.2,28,300/ (Rupees Two Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand and Three Hundred only) along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date 71 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011 SCCH - 24 of filing till the date of depositing the award amount.
On deposit of compensation and interest, entire amount shall be released in the name of the Petitioner with due acknowledgment and proper identification as per Rules.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1000/ in each case.
The original copy of this judgment is ordered to be kept in MVC.7584/2011 and the copies of it be kept in MVC.7585/2011 and 7586/2011.
Office to draw separate awards accordingly.
(Typed to my dictation directly on computer by the stenographer, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 15th day of December 2022.) (Miss.B.T.ANNAPOORNESHWARI) C/c XXII Addl., SCJ & ACMM Bengaluru.
72 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24 ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined for Petitioner:
PW.1 : Sri.C.Jagadeesh PW.2 : Sri.Prashanth Babu.R PW.3 : Sri.Pratap.D PW.4 : Dr.Mahendra.S.K. PW.5 : Dr.Narendra PW.6 : Dr.Arun L.Naik PW.6 : Dr.Nagaraja.G.V. PW.7 : Dr.Mahendra.S.K. List of Witnesses examined for Respondent/s:
RW.1 : Sri.Muralidhar.N RW.2 : Smt.T.Sumalatha RW.3 : Smt.C.J.Meera RW.4 : Sri.Somashekar List of Documents marked for Petitioner: Ex.P1 : True copy of the FIR. Ex.P2 : True copy of the spot and seizure mahazar Ex.P3 : True copy of the IMV report Ex.P4 : True copy of Wound certificate 73 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011 SCCH - 24 Ex.P5 : Reference letter Ex.P6 : Discharge summary Ex.P7 : Scanning report.
Ex.P8 : Medical bills amounting Rs.2,74,556/
(133 in no's)
Ex.P9 : Xrays (9 in no's)
Ex.P10 : Copy of Training certificate
Ex.P11 : Certificate.
Ex.P12 : RTC.
Ex.P13 : True copy of wound certificate.
Ex.P14 : Discharge card.
Ex.P15 : Reference letter.
Ex.P16 : Scanning report (7 in no's)
Ex.P17 & 18 : Discharge summaries.
Ex.P19 : 36 medical bills for Rs.1,06,160/.
Ex.P20 : RTC
Ex.P21 : Discharge card.
Ex.P22 : Discharge summary.
Ex.P23 : Lab report.
Ex.P24 : 4 Medical bills for sum of Rs.4,710/.
Ex.P25 :
Ex.P26 to 30 : 7 Xrays.
Ex.P31 : Authorization letter.
Ex.P32 : Case sheet.
Ex.P33 : OPD Record.
74 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
Ex.P34 : Xray.
Ex.P35 : 3 CT Scan films.
Ex.P36 : Case sheet.
Ex.P36(a) : A portion of casesheet containing history
of injury.
Ex.P37 to 39 : 3 Xrays.
Ex.P40 : Wound certificate.
Ex.P41 : Discharge summary.
Ex.P42 & 43 : Inpatient bill and medical bills.
Ex.P.44 : Outpatient medical record.
Ex.P45 : Inpatient medical record.
Ex.P46 : Xray (1 in no).
Ex.P47 : Surgical Discharge summary.
Ex.P48 : Inpatient final bill (Duplicate copy)
Ex.P.49 : Inpatient receipts
Ex.P.50 : Outpatient cash bill (3 in no's)
List of documents exhibited for Respondent: Ex.R1 : Copy of the Insurance Policy. Ex.R2 : B Register extract. Ex.R3 : Driving license extract. Ex.R4 : Copy of the Notice. Ex.R5 : Postal receipt.
Ex.R6 : 'C' Report.
Ex.R7 : Driving licence extract
75 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24
Ex.R8 : Driving licence extract
Ex.R9 : Driving licence extract
Ex.R10 : Driving licence card (Miss.B.T.ANNAPOORNESHWARI) C/c XXII Addl., SCJ & ACMM Bengaluru.76 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24 06.12.2022 For Judgment by 12.12.2020 C/c XXII ASCJ & ACMM 12.12.2022 For Judgment by 15.12.2020 C/c XXII ASCJ & ACMM 15.12.2020 PKTM R1Ex R2SM For judgment Pronounced vide separate judgment with following operative portion:
ORDER The petitions in MVC No.7584/2011, 7585/2011 and 7586/2011 are hereby allowed in part with cost.
The Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the 77 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011 SCCH - 24 Petitioners. However, the Respondent No.2 being the insurer is liable to indemnify the Respondent No.1 and directed to deposit the compensation amount to the Petitioners within 60 days from today. The Petitioner in MVC. No.7584/2011 is entitled for total compensation of Rs.5,85,600/ (Rupees Five Lakhs Eighty Five Thousand and Six Hundred only) along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing till the date of depositing the award amount.
On deposit of compensation and interest, 20% amount shall be deposited in the name of the Petitioner in any N/S bank for a period of 3 years and remaining amount shall be released in the name of the 78 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011 SCCH - 24 Petitioner with proper identification and due acknowledgment as per Rules.
The Petitioner in MVC. No.7585/2011 is entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,56,200/ (Rupees One Lakhs Fifty Six Thousand and Two Hundred only) along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing till the date of depositing the award amount.
On deposit of compensation and interest, entire amount shall be released in the name of the Petitioner with due acknowledgment and proper identification as per Rules.
The Petitioner in MVC. No.7586/2011 is entitled for total compensation of Rs.2,28,300/ (Rupees Two Lakhs Twenty 79 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011 SCCH - 24 Eight Thousand and Three Hundred only) along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing till the date of depositing the award amount.
On deposit of compensation and interest, entire amount shall be released in the name of the Petitioner with due acknowledgment and proper identification as per Rules.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1000/ in each case.
The original copy of this judgment is ordered to be kept in MVC.7584/2011 and the copies of it be kept in MVC.7585/2011 and 7586/2011.
Office to draw separate awards accordingly.
C/c XXII Addl., SCJ & ACMM Bengaluru.80 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24 AWARD BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA: BANGALORE CITY (SCCH24) MVC NO.7584/2011 PETITIONER/S: Sri.C.Jagadeesh, In MVC:7584/2011: S/o Chowdappa, Aged about 25 years, No.10/1, Opp: to HKS Foods Products Factory, Hosakerehalli, Kerekodi, Bangalore85.
(By Sri.C.Puttaswamy, Advocate.) V/s RESPONDENT/S 1. Smt.Sujatha, IN ALL THE THREE W/o Kempegowda, CASES: No.91/1, 1st Main Road, 2nd cross, A.T.Street, Jayanagar 6th Block, Bangalore.
(Exparte)
2.Tata AIG General Insurance Co.Ltd.
Legal Office, No.69, 2nd Floor, JP & Devi Jambukeswar Arcade Millers road, Bangalore52.
81 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24 (Policy No.0150471544 valid from 22.05.2008 to 21.05.2009) (By Sri.S.Maheswara, Advocate).
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. WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up on for final disposal before Miss. B.T.Annapoorneshwari, C/c XXII Addl.Judge, Member, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for Petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. Advocate for Respondent.
82 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24 ORDER The petition in MVC No.7584/2011 is hereby allowed in part with cost.
The Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Petitioners. However, the Respondent No.2 being the insurer is liable to indemnify the Respondent No.1 and directed to deposit the compensation amount to the Petitioners within 60 days from today. The Petitioner in MVC. No.7584/2011 is entitled for total compensation of Rs.5,85,600/ (Rupees Five Lakhs Eighty Five Thousand and Six Hundred only) along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing till the date of depositing the award amount. 83 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24 On deposit of compensation and interest, 20% amount shall be deposited in the name of the Petitioner in any N/S bank for a period of 3 years and remaining amount shall be released in the name of the Petitioner with proper identification and due acknowledgment as per Rules.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1000/ in each case.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this 15 day of December 2022.
th MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA BANGALORE. 84 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24 Memorandum of costs incurred in this case.
By the __________________________________ Petitioner/s Respondent Court fee paid on petition 1000 Court fee paid on Powers 0000 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 85 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011 SCCH - 24 AWARD BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA: BANGALORE CITY (SCCH24) MVC NO. 7585/2011 PETITIONER/S: Sri.Prashanth Babu R., In MVC:7585/2011: S/o Ramaiah, Aged 25 years, Ramaiah Grapes Garden, Hosakerehalli, Kerekodi, Bangalore85.
(By Sri.C.Puttaswamy, Advocate.) V/s RESPONDENT/S 1. Smt.Sujatha, W/o Kempegowda, No.91/1, 1st Main Road, 2nd cross, A.T.Street, Jayanagar 6th Block, Bangalore.
(Exparte)
2.Tata AIG General Insurance Co.Ltd.
Legal Office, No.69, 2nd Floor, JP & Devi Jambukeswar Arcade Millers road, Bangalore52.
86 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24 (Policy No.0150471544 valid from 22.05.2008 to 21.05.2009) (By Sri.S.Maheswara, Advocate).
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. WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up on for final disposal before Miss. B.T.Annapoorneshwari, C/c XXII Addl.Judge, Member, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for Petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. Advocate for Respondent.
87 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24 ORDER The petition in MVC No. 7585/2011 is hereby allowed in part with cost. The Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Petitioners. However, the Respondent No.2 being the insurer is liable to indemnify the Respondent No.1 and directed to deposit the compensation amount to the Petitioners within 60 days from today. The Petitioner in MVC. No.7585/2011 is entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,56,200/ (Rupees One Lakhs Fifty Six Thousand and Two Hundred only) along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing till the date of depositing the award amount.
88 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24 On deposit of compensation and interest, entire amount shall be released in the name of the Petitioner with due acknowledgment and proper identification as per Rules.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1000/ in each case.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this 15 day of December 2022.
th MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA BANGALORE. 89 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24 Memorandum of costs incurred in this case.
By the __________________________________ Petitioner/s Respondent Court fee paid on petition 1000 Court fee paid on Powers 0000 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 90 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011 SCCH - 24 AWARD BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA: BANGALORE CITY (SCCH24) MVC NO.7586/2011 PETITIONER/S: Sri.Pratap.D. In MVC:7586/2011: S/o Dharmashekar, Aged about 24 years, Ramaiah Grapes Garden, Hosakerehalli, Kerekodi, Bangalore85.
Permanent address:
Pratap.D. Belur Taluk, Hassan District. Sakaleshpura.
(By Sri.C.Puttaswamy, Advocate.) V/s RESPONDENT/S 1. Smt.Sujatha, W/o Kempegowda, No.91/1, 1st Main Road, 2nd cross, A.T.Street, Jayanagar 6th Block, Bangalore.
(Exparte)
2.Tata AIG General Insurance Co.Ltd.
Legal Office, No.69, 2nd Floor, JP & Devi Jambukeswar 91 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011 SCCH - 24 Arcade Millers road, Bangalore52.
(Policy No.0150471544 valid from 22.05.2008 to 21.05.2009) (By Sri.S.Maheswara, Advocate).
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. WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up on for final disposal before Miss. B.T.Annapoorneshwari, C/c XXII Addl.Judge, Member, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for Petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. Advocate for Respondent.
92 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24 ORDER The petition in MVC No. 7586/2011 is hereby allowed in part with cost. The Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Petitioners. However, the Respondent No.2 being the insurer is liable to indemnify the Respondent No.1 and directed to deposit the compensation amount to the Petitioners within 60 days from today. The Petitioner in MVC. No.7586/2011 is entitled for total compensation of Rs.2,28,300/ (Rupees Two Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand and Three Hundred only) along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date 93 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011 SCCH - 24 of filing till the date of depositing the award amount.
On deposit of compensation and interest, entire amount shall be released in the name of the Petitioner with due acknowledgment and proper identification as per Rules.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1000/ in each case.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this th 15 day of December 2022.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA BANGALORE. 94 MVC No.7584, 7585 and 7586/2011
SCCH - 24 Memorandum of costs incurred in this case.
By the __________________________________ Petitioner/s Respondent Court fee paid on petition 1000 Court fee paid on Powers 0000 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