Bangalore District Court
In Mvc No.2121/2015 Radha.N vs In All The Cases 1. Reliance General on 6 June, 2016
BEFORE THE COURT OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.
SCCH-14
PRESENT: Basavaraj Chengti., B.Com.,LL.B.,(spl)
Member, MACT,
XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes,
BANGALORE.
MVC No.2121/2015, 2173/2015, 2174/2015 and
2175/2015
Dated this the 6th day of JUNE 2016.
Petitioner in MVC No.2121/2015 RADHA.N
W/o Prakash B
Aged about 38 years,
R/at No.196/1,
Channanayakanapalaya,
Bangalore North,
Bangalore-560 073.
(By pleader Sri MGR)
Petitioner in MVC No.2173/2015 RAJA.M
S/o Marigowda,
Aged about 36 years,
R/at No.56/7, 1st cross,
42nd main, Marappa Layout,
Rajarajeshwari Layout,
Bangalore-560 098.
(By pleader Sri MGR)
Petitioner in MVC No.2174/2015 PRAKASH. B
S/o Basavaiah.K
Aged about 48 years,
R/at No.196/1,
Channanayakanapalaya,
SCCH-14 2 MVC No.2121, 2173, 2174 &
2175/2015
Bangalore North,
Bangalore-560 073.
(By pleader Sri MGR)
Petitioner in MVC No.2175/2015 1. RAJA.M
S/o Marigowda,
Aged about 36 years,
2. ARCHANA. S
W/o Raju.M
Aged about 25 years,
R/at No.56/7. 1st cross,
42nd main, Marappa layout,
Rajarajeshwari layout,
Bangalore-560 098.
V/s
(By pleader Sri MGR)
Respondent in all the cases 1. RELIANCE GENERAL
INS.,CO.LTD.,
No.28, 5th floor,
East wing,
Centenary Building,
M.G road, Bangalore.
(By pleader Sri SM)
2. MR. RAGAVENDRA. S
S/o Sathish Pai,
No.461, 2nd main road,
7th cross, Manjunath nagar,
Nagasandra Post,
Bangalore-560 073.
(By pleader Sri MNM)
XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes & MACT.,
BANGALORE.
SCCH-14 3 MVC No.2121, 2173, 2174 &
2175/2015
COMMON JUDGMENT
The petitioners have filed these petitions U/Sec.166 of
Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-,
Rs.25,00,000/-, Rs.7,00,000/- and Rs.7,00,000/- respectively with
cost and interest. The petitioners in MVC No.2175/15 are claiming
compensation for the death of Kum.Parinitha in a road traffic
accident and the petitioners in other cases are claiming
compensation for the injuries sustained by them in the same
accident. Since, these petitions are arising out of the same
accident, they are clubbed together for common trial and for
disposal by a common Judgment.
2. Brief averments of the claim petitions are as under:
On 11.03.2015 at about 01.30 A.M., the petitioners and the
deceased Kum Parinitha were traveling in Chevrolet car bearing
No.KA-04-D-9465 from Bangalore towards Maddur in order to go
to Keelagatta Maddur Taluk. When they reached Nidagatta village,
near Gopalaiah Yard, at that time, the driver of the said vehicle
was drove his vehicle with high speed, in rash and negligent
manner and he lost control and the said vehicle was toppled on the
left side of road. Due to impact, the petitioners and Kum Parinitha
sustained grievous injuries. Kum. Parinitha died on the spot due to
accidental injuries. After conducting post-mortem, the dead body
of Parinitha was handed over to the petitioners in MVC
No.2175/15 who performed funeral and obsequies ceremony. Prior
to the accident, deceased Kum.Parinitha was hale and healthy,
SCCH-14 4 MVC No.2121, 2173, 2174 &
2175/2015
was aged 3 years. The petitioners lost their daughter. Due to the
untimely death of the Kum.Parinitha, the petitioners were put to
great financial loss and mental agony.
The petitioners in other cases were taken to Govt., Hospital,
Maddur for treatment. Thereafter, the petitioner Radha was shifted
to Mandya Institute of Medical Sciences and Teaching Hospital,
Mandya, wherein she was admitted as an inpatient. The petitioner
Radha sustained injury to right leg and other parts of the body.
She spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards treatment, conveyance and
nourishment etc., Prior to the accident, the petitioner Radha was
hale and healthy, was aged 38 years, was working as a tailor at
ECCI Garments and was drawing a salary of Rs.8,000/- per
month. Due to accidental injuries, the petitioner and her family are
put to great financial loss and mental agony.
The petitioner Raju sustained injury to head, to his hand
and other parts of the body. He was shifted to BGS Global Hospital
for further treatment, wherein he was admitted as an inpatient.
The petitioner underwent several surgeries and he spent
Rs.11,00,000/- for medical expenditure and Rs.5,00,000/-
towards conveyance and nourishment etc., Prior to the accident,
the petitioner Raju was hale and healthy, was aged 36 years, was
working as fabricator at Chowdeshvari Fabricators, Rajarajeshwari
Nagar, Bangalore and was earning Rs.15,000/- p.m., Due
accidental injuries, he was not able to attend his duty as a result
SCCH-14 5 MVC No.2121, 2173, 2174 &
2175/2015
loss of earning and earning capacity and his entire family is put to
great financial loss and mental agony.
The petitioner Prakash sustained severe injuries all over the
body. He was shifted to Mandya Institute of Medical Sciences and
Teaching Hospital, Mandya, wherein he was admitted as an
inpatient. He underwent several surgeries and he spent
Rs.2,00,000/- for medical expenditure and Rs.1,00,000/- towards
conveyance and nourishment etc., Prior to the accident, the
petitioner Prakash was hale and healthy, was aged 48 years, was
working as security guard in SBI ATM at Chikkabidarekal and was
drawing a salary of Rs.11,000/- p.m., Due accidental injuries, he
was not able to attend his duty as a result loss of earning and
earning capacity and his entire family is put to great financial loss
and mental agony.
Maddur Traffic police have registered Cr.No.25/2015 for the
offences punishable U/Sec.279, 337, 304-A of IPC. The
respondents are the owner and insurer of Chevrolet car bearing
No.KA-04-D-9465 and are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation to the petitioners with the cost and interest. Hence,
the petitions.
3. In pursuance of the notices, the respondents have
appeared before the court through their respective counsel and
filed written statement separately in all the cases. The respondent
no.1 has admitted the issuance of policy in favour of respondent
no.2 in respect of car bearing No.KA-04-D-9465, but he has denied
SCCH-14 6 MVC No.2121, 2173, 2174 &
2175/2015
the other averments of the petitions as false. He has contended
that the insured and concerned police have not complied with their
mandatory duties, that driver of the insured vehicle was not
holding a valid and effective driving licence and the said vehicle
was not having valid permit and FC as on the date of accident, that
the insured has committed breach of terms and conditions of the
policy, that he is not liable to pay any compensation to the
petitioners, that, the said car was not involved in the alleged
accident, that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is
exorbitant and fanciful. Hence, he has sought for dismissal of the
claim petitions with costs.
The respondent no.2 has admitted that he is the driver cum
owner of the car bearing No.KA-04-D-9465 and contended that he
was having valid driving licence to drive the said car, that the said
car was insured with the respondent no.1 under insurance policy
no.140174340000640 which was valid from 20.09.2014 to
19.09.2015 and same was in force as on the alleged date of
accident, that that the respondent no.1 is liable to indemnify him.
He has admitted the occurrence of accident involving his car, but
he has denied that the said accident was due to his negligence. He
has contended that the petitioners have sustained simple injuries,
but not grievous injuries and they have not spent any amount
towards their treatment. Hence, he has sought for dismissal of the
petitions with exemplary cost as against him.
SCCH-14 7 MVC No.2121, 2173, 2174 &
2175/2015
4. On the basis of above pleadings, the following were
framed and among them issues in MVC No.2121/15, 2173/15 and
2174/15 are common.
COMMON ISSUES in 2121/15, 2173/15 & 2174/15
1. Whether the petitioner proves that
she/he sustained grievious injuries
in the nature of permanent
disablement on 11.03.2015 at about
01.30 a.m., On Bangalore-Mysore
road, Near Nidagatta Village,
Maddur Taluk, Mandya District, in
an accident arising due to rash and
negligent driving of driver of
Chevrolet Car bearing No.KA-04-D-
9465?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled
for compensation? If so, how
much and from whom?
3. What Order or Award?
ISSUES IN MVC No.2175/2015
1. Whether the petitioners prove
that Kum. Parinitha R. d/o Raju
M died due to injuries sustained
by her in an accident occurred on
11.03.2015 at about 01.30 a.m.,
on Bangalore-Mysore road, Near
Nidagatta Village, Maddur Taluk,
and Mandya District, arising due
to rash and negligent driving of
driver of Chevrolet Car bearing
No. KA-04-D-9465?
2. Whether the petitioners are
entitled for compensation? If so,
how much and from whom?
3. What Order or Award?
SCCH-14 8 MVC No.2121, 2173, 2174 &
2175/2015
5. At the instance of the petitioners, these petitions are
clubbed together and common evidence was let in
MVC No.2121/15. During the evidence, the petitioners have
examined the petitioner in MVC No.2121/15, in MVC No.2173/15,
in MVC No.2174/2015 as PW.1 to 3 and examined two witnesses
as PW.4 and 5. Among them, PW.1 has deposed regarding the
claim in MVC No.2173/15 and in MVC No.2175/15. The
petitioners have got marked documents as Ex.P1 to 28 and closed
their side. The respondents have not adduced any evidence on
their behalf.
6. Heard the arguments and perused the records.
7. My findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 : In all the cases: In Affirmative.
Issue No.2 : In MVC.No.2121/15: In Affirmative.
For Rs.21,000/- from the respondent no.1.
Issue No.2 : In MVC.No.2173/15: In Affirmative.
For Rs.13,29,000/- from the respondent no.1
Issue No.2 : In MVC.No.2174/15: In Affirmative.
For Rs.2,32,000/- from the respondent no.1.
Issue No.2 : In MVC.No.2175/15: In Affirmative.
For Rs.3,75,000/- from the respondent no.1.
Issue No.3 :In both cases: As per final order:
REASONS
8. ISSUE NO.1 IN ALL THE CASES: It is the case of the
petitioners that they were traveling in Chevrolet car bearing No.
SCCH-14 9 MVC No.2121, 2173, 2174 &
2175/2015
KA-04-D-9465 on 11.03.2015 at 01.30 a.m., from Bangalore
towards Maddur in order to go to Keelagatta Maddur Taluk, that
when they reached Nidagatta village, near Gopalaiah Yard, at that
time, the driver of said car drove the same in high speed, in rash
and negligent manner, lost control over the vehicle which resulted
in toppling of car, that due to impact, they have sustained injuries
leading to permanent disability, that Kum. Parinitha was also
traveling in the said car and she sustained fatal injuries and died
on the spot. Hence, they have sought for compensation from the
respondents.
9. It is an admitted fact that the respondent no.1 is the
insurer and the respondent no.2 is the owner cum driver of
Chevrolet car bearing No.KA-04-D-9465, that the policy was in
force on the date of accident. No other vehicle is involved in the
accident. The respondent no.2 has admitted the occurrence of
accident, but he has denied his negligence for the occurrence of
the same. He has contended that the petitioners sustained simple
injuries in the accident. He has not stated anything about cause
for the death of Kum.Parinitha. The respondent no.1 has denied
the involvement of insured car in the accident. Both the
respondents have not adduced any evidence to prove their defence
and disprove the case of the petitioners. Hence, their contentions
remained as pleadings without there being any proof.
10. The petitioners have relied upon oral evidence of PW.1
to 5 to prove their case. They have got marked Ex.P1 to 28 to
SCCH-14 10 MVC No.2121, 2173, 2174 &
2175/2015
corroborate the oral evidence of PW.1 to 5. There is nothing on
record to rebut oral and documentary evidence produced by the
petitioners.
11. PW.1:Raju, PW.2:Prakash and PW.3:Radha are the
injured petitioners. PW.1:Raju is also one of the LRs of the
deceased Parinitha. They have reiterated the averments of the
petitions and stated that they sustained grievous injuries and
Kum. Parinitha died due to injuries sustained by her in the
accident arising due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of
Chevrolet car bearing No.KA-04-D-9465. PW.4:Vasanthappa is the
proprietor of Chowdeshvari fabricators and he has deposed about
occupation and income of the petitioner Raju. His evidence is not
helpful to decide this issue. However, evidence of
PW.5:Dr.Ramachandra is regarding the extent of disability suffered
by the petitioner Raju and it is helpful to decide this issue.
12. There is no dispute that Maddur Traffic police have
registered Cr.No.25/2015 on 11.03.2015 at 05.00 a.m., on the
basis of information given by Archana W/o Raju, investigated the
matter and filed charge sheet against the respondent no.2 for the
offences punishable U/Sec.279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC. Copies
of police records namely FIR with complaint, spot panchanama,
IMV report, inquest panchanama with statement, PM report and
charge sheet are at Ex.P1 to 3, 8, 9 and 20. On perusal of said
police records, it reveals that complaint regarding accident was
lodged before police without any delay and investigation was done
SCCH-14 11 MVC No.2121, 2173, 2174 &
2175/2015
by the police. The vehicle involved in the accident was detained by
the police and was subjected to inspection. IMV report reveals that
the accident was not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle
and its brake system was in order. The respondent no.2 has simply
denied his negligence for the occurrence of the accident, but he
has not explained under what circumstances the accident has
occurred. The respondent no.1 has denied the involvement of
insured vehicle, but he has failed to explain the reason for
damages caused to the insured car which can be seen from IMV
report. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the contents of
charge sheet which are prima-facie evidence regarding the
negligence of the respondent no.2 for the occurrence of the
accident. The said police records corroborate the evidence of PW.1
to 3 regarding manner of accident which collectively establish the
averments of the petitions. There is no rebuttal evidence to
disbelieve the oral and documentary evidence produced by the
petitioners. Except bare denials, nothing is elicited from PW.1 to 3
regarding manner of accident. Hence, I have no hesitation to hold
that the accident has occurred due to sole negligence of the driver
of Chevrolet car bearing No.KA-04-D-9465 i.e., due to negligence of
the respondent no.2.
13. PW.1 to 3 have deposed about the injuries caused to
them in the accident. Copy of wound certificates at Ex.P4, 12 and
18 support the version of PW.1 to 3. PW.5:Dr.Ramachandra has
deposed about the injuries caused to the petitioner Raju and
Prakash. He has stated that the petitioner Raju is suffering from
SCCH-14 12 MVC No.2121, 2173, 2174 &
2175/2015
whole body disability of 26% and the petitioner Prakash is
suffering from whole body disability of 16.9%. The respondent no.1
has disputed the extent of disability assessed by the doctor.
Correctness of assessment made by PW.5 can be dealt while
discussing issue regarding quantum of compensation. It is evident
that the petitioner Raju and Praksh are suffering permanent
disability. The petitioner Radha has sustained simple injuries.
Copy of inquest panchanama and PM report at Ex.P8 and 9 reveal
that Kum. Parinitha died due to injuries sustained by her in the
accident. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioners have
succeeded to prove that PW.1 to 3 have sustained injuries and
Kum.Parinitha died due to injuries sustained by her in the
accident, that the said accident was due to rash and negligent
driving of Chevrolet car bearing No.KA-04-D-9465 by the
respondent no.2. The evidence of PW.1 to 3 and 5 in that regard is
believable. Their evidence is corroborated by police records and
medical records. The respondents have failed to prove their defence
and to disprove the case of the petitioners. Hence, I answer the
issues in affirmative.
14. ISSUE NO.2 IN MVC NO.2121/2015: It is pleaded
that the petitioner Radha was aged 38 years, was a tailor in ECCI
Garments and was earning Rs.8,000/- per month, that the
petitioner has sustained grievous injuries to her right leg and other
parts of the body, that the petitioner has suffered financial loss
and mental agony due to accident. Hence, the petitioner has
sought for awarding compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-. The
SCCH-14 13 MVC No.2121, 2173, 2174 &
2175/2015
respondents have denied the claim of the petitioner Radha as false
and contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is
excessive and exorbitant.
15. PW.3:Radha has reiterated the averments of the
petition. She has produced copy of wound certificate and copy of
voter ID to support her oral evidence. In cross-examination, she
has denied the suggestions that she was not doing any work and
was having any income, that she was/is a house wife, that as per
wound certificate her injuries were simple in nature. She has not
produced any oral or documentary evidence regarding her
occupation and income. Her age is shown as 40 years, occupation
as house wife in the charge sheet. Her date birth is mentioned as
01.08.1982 in voter ID at Ex.P19. It means, she was aged 32 years
on the date of accident. PW.3 herself has stated that she was aged
38 years at the time of accident. There is nothing on record to
disbelieve the contents of charge sheet regarding age and
occupation of the petitioner Radha. She could have produced her
wage slip, wage register extract or bank statement to establish her
occupation and income. Hence, I hold that the petitioner was aged
40 years, was a housewife on the date of accident and she was not
having any source of income at that time.
16. Copy of wound certificate at Ex.P18 discloses that the
petitioner Radha has sustained following injuries:
1. Severe pain in right knee
2. Abrasion over other part of body
SCCH-14 14 MVC No.2121, 2173, 2174 &
2175/2015
The injuries of the petitioner Radha are described as simple in
nature. There is no oral or documentary evidence to believe that
the petitioner Radha has sustained grievous injuries leading to
permanent disability. She has not produced any medical bills. But,
one of her bills amounting to Rs.935/- is produced during the
evidence of PW.2 under Ex.P15. It appears that the counsel has
produced the said bill during evidence PW.2 due to oversight.
There is nothing on record to disbelieve the said bill. Ex.P18
discloses that she took treatment in Govt., Hospital at free cost.
There is no medical records regarding follow up treatment taken by
the petitioner Radha. The nature of injuries caused to her does not
require any follow up treatment. However, she might have suffered
pain, was on rest for one or two weeks. She might have incurred
expenses towards nourishment and conveyance. She might have
lost amenities for a short period. There is no loss of earning and
earning capacity of the petitioner as she was not doing any job.
Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner Radha is entitled for
a compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and sufferings,
Rs.1,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.5,000/-towards
nourishment and conveyance and Rs.5,000/- towards temporary
loss of amenities. Thus, the petitioner Radha is entitled for just
and reasonable compensation as under:
1. Pain and suffering Rs. 10,000/-
2. Medical expenses Rs. 1,000/-
3. Nourishment and Rs. 5,000/-
conveyance
4. Temporary loss of Rs. 5,000/-
amenities
Total Rs. 21,000/-
SCCH-14 15 MVC No.2121, 2173, 2174 &
2175/2015
The petitioner Radha is further entitled for interest @ 9%
p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment. Liability
aspect is discussed separately. Hence, I answer the issue as above.
17. ISSUE NO.2 IN MVC NO.2173/2015: : It is pleaded
that the petitioner Raju was aged 36 years, was a fabricator in
Chowdeshvari fabricators and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month,
that the petitioner has sustained severe injury to head, hand and
other parts of the body, that the petitioner has spent
Rs.16,00,000/- towards treatment, conveyance and nourishment,
that he has suffered financial loss and mental agony due to
accident. Hence, the petitioner has sought for awarding
compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-. The respondents have denied the
claim of the petitioner Raju as false and contended that the
compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive and
exorbitant.
18. PW.1:Raju has reiterated the averments of the petition.
Copy of voter ID at Ex.P-6 reveals that the petitioner was aged
26 years as on 1.1.2005. It means, he was aged 36 years as on the
date of accident. Age of the petitioner is shown as 37 years in
police and medical records. Age mentioned in voter ID prevails over
the age mentioned in police records and medical records. Hence,
I hold that the petitioner was aged 36 years. His occupation is
shown as welding worker in the charge sheet at Ex.P-20. Evidence
of PW.4 corroborates the evidence of PW-1 as to his occupation
and same is reliable. Hence, I hold that the petitioner was working
SCCH-14 16 MVC No.2121, 2173, 2174 &
2175/2015
as fabricator in Chowdeshvari Fabricators as on the date of
accident.
19. The petitioner has relied upon his own oral evidence,
that of PW.4 to prove his income. PW.4 has produced salary
certificate, copy of VAT certificate and copy of PT certificate which
are marked as Ex.P21 to 23. In cross-examination, PW.1 has
admitted as to non production of documents regarding his
occupation and income. Said admission was prior to examination
of PW.4 by the petitioner Raju. Hence, admission regarding non
production of document is of no avail. Ex.P-22 and 23 disclose that
PW4 is running an industry, but those documents are not helpful
to prove the occupation and income of the petitioner. There is lot of
space between the typed matter and the signature of PW.4 on
salary certificate at Ex.P-21. The petitioner and PW.4 could have
produced salary vouchers, wage slips and bank statement. But,
they have not produced the same. Hence, Ex.P-21 can not be relied
upon to assess the income of the petitioner. If salary certificate is
excluded, there is nothing on record to corroborate the evidence of
PW.1 and PW.4 regarding income of the petitioner. Hence, I am of
the opinion that the petitioner has failed to prove his income. In
the absence of cogent evidence, income of the petitioner shall have
to be assessed notionally. I am of the opinion that if the income of
the petitioner is considered as Rs.9,000/- p.m., it will meet the
ends of justice. His annual income comes to Rs.1,08,000/-.
Appropriate multiplier for the age of the petitioner is 15.
SCCH-14 17 MVC No.2121, 2173, 2174 &
2175/2015
20. Evidence of PW.1 and PW.5 and contents of wound
certificate, discharge summaries, OPD book, MRI report at Ex.P-4,
5, 24 and 25 disclose that the petitioner has sustained following
injuries in the accident:
1. Polythrauma
2. Segmental Mandibular fracture
3. Left Distal Radius Comminuted fracture
4. Sternal Fracture
5. Blunt Chest injury
6. Multiple ribs fracture with left sided minimal
pneumothorax,
7. Liver laceration (Grade II)
8. Thoracic Spine D-5, 6 fractures.
21. The petitioner was treated in Maddur Govt. hospital
and in BGS hospital. He was an inpatient for 23 days from
11.3.2015 to 1.4.2015 and on 29.7.2015. He underwent following
procedure in the hospital:
1. He underwent bilateral arch bar fixation
and IMF and ORIF of the segmental
mandibular fracture under GA on
12.03.2015.
2. He underwent left distal radius fracture
open reduction and internal fixation
with plate under GA on 12.03.2015.
The discharge summaries reveal that the petitioner was on
follow up treatment and rest after each admission. He might have
taken follow up treatment and rest for a period of 4 months. His
total laid up period comes to 5 months. During the said period, the
petitioner might have spent amount for nourishment, conveyance
and attendant charges apart from incurring medical expenses.
There is no corroboration to the evidence of PW.1 as to amount
SCCH-14 18 MVC No.2121, 2173, 2174 &
2175/2015
spent for nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges, but he
has got marked medical bills amounting to Rs.7,84,642/-. There is
nothing on record to believe that the bills are created for this case.
The petitioner might have lost his income for 5 months during laid
up period. PW.1 has stated about total loss of income. He stated to
have resigned his job. He has denied the suggestion that he
continued the same job in the same company. He has not
produced copy of resignation letter, relieving letter or termination
letter to prove that he has lost his job. PW.4 has not deposed about
resignation of the petitioner. In the absence of material evidence,
say of PW.1 as to loss of job due to accidental injuries is liable to
rejected. I hold that the petitioner has continued the same job in
the same factory on the same income. But, PW.5:Dr.Ramachndra
has deposed that the petitioner is suffering from permanent
disability of 26% to whole body. Implant is removed. There is no
mention in medical records regarding mal union of fracture of
radius. Other injuries are treated conservatively. Hence, I am of the
opinion that the assessment of disability made by the doctor is on
the higher side. Looking to the admissions of PW.5, calculation
shown in Ex.P-24, loss of movement, loss of power, I am of the
opinion that if the extent of disability of the petitioner is restricted
to 20% to whole body, it will meet the ends of justice. The said
disability will come in the way of the petitioner to do his
occupation. Hence, I am of the opinion that the disability caused to
the petitioner is physical as well as functional resulting in loss of
earning capacity. He may not be able to do over time and to do
heavy manual work and due to it, he may not get regular
SCCH-14 19 MVC No.2121, 2173, 2174 &
2175/2015
increments or hike in salary. Hence, I am inclined to assess loss of
earning capacity of the petitioner to the extent of disability i.e.,
20%.
22. The petitioner is suffering from several difficulties due
to accidental injuries. Evidence of PW.1 in that regard is
corroborated by the evidence of PW.5 and contents of OPD book at
Ex.P-24. The said difficulties may persist in future resulting in loss
of amenities. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is
entitled for a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and
sufferings, Rs.7,85,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.25,000/-
towards nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges,
Rs.45,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period,
Rs.25,000/- towards disability and Rs.25,000/- towards loss of
amenities. His loss of future income would be
Rs.1,08,000X15X20%= Rs.3,24,000/-. Thus, he is entitled for just
and reasonable compensation as under:
1. Pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000/-
2 Medical expenses Rs. 7,85,000/-
3. Nourishment, Rs. 25,000/-
conveyance and
attendant charges
4. Loss of income during Rs. 45,000/-
laid up period
5. Loss of future income Rs.3,24,000/-
6. Disability Rs. 25,000/-
7. Loss of amenities Rs. 25,000/-
Total Rs.13,29,000/-
SCCH-14 20 MVC No.2121, 2173, 2174 &
2175/2015
The petitioner Raju is further entitled for interest @ 9% p.a.,
from the date of petition till the date of payment. Liability aspect is
discussed separately. Hence, I answer the issue as above.
23. ISSUE NO.2 IN MVC NO.2174/15: It is pleaded that
the petitioner Prakash was aged 48 years, was a security guard
and was earning Rs.11,000/- p.m., that he sustained grievous
injuries all over the body, that he spent Rs.3,00,000/- towards
treatment, nourishment and conveyance, that he suffered financial
loss and mental agony due to accidental injuries. Hence, he has
sought for awarding compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-. The
respondents have denied the claim of the petitioner as false and
contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is
excessive and exorbitant.
24. PW.2: Prakash has reiterated the averments of the
petition. Voter ID at Ex.P-14 discloses that the petitioner was born
on 6.12.1967. It means, he was aged 47 years on the date of
accident. His age is shown as 48 years in police records. There is
nothing on records to disbelieve the date of birth shown in voter
ID. There is no corroboration to the evidence of PW.1 as to his
occupation and income. However, occupation of the petitioner is
shown as security guard in charge sheet and same is believable.
Hence, I hold that the petitioner was aged 47 years and was
working as security guard as on the date of accident. In the
absence of material evidence such as salary slip, wage register
extract or bank statement, income of the petitioner shall be
SCCH-14 21 MVC No.2121, 2173, 2174 &
2175/2015
assessed notionally. I am of the opinion that if the income of the
petitioner Prakash is considered as Rs.8,000/- p.m., it will meet
the ends of justice. His annual income comes to Rs.96,000/-.
Appropriate multiplier for the age of the petitioner is 13.
25. The petitioner has examined PW-5: Dr. Ramachandra
and got marked Ex.P-12 to 17, 27 and 28 to corroborate his oral
evidence as to injuries caused to him in the accident. PW.5 has
supported the version of PW.2 as to injuries and stated that the
petitioner is suffering from permanent disability of 16.9% to whole
body. The respondents have disputed the correctness of
assessment made by PW.5. Contents of OPD book and x-ray at
Ex.P-27 and 28 corroborate the evidence of PW.5 as to extent of
disability suffered by the petitioner. Copy of wound certificate and
discharge summary at Ex.P-12 and 13 disclose that the petitioner
Prakash has sustained following injuries:
1. Fracture shaft of left humerus middle
one third
2. Pelvis fracture: fracture of superior and
inferior pubic rami right
The petitioner Prakash has taken initial treatment in Govt.
hospital, Maddur and further treatment in Mandya Institute of
Medical Science and Teaching hospital, Mandya. He was an
inpatient for a period of 17 days and underwent ORIF with locking
nail. He was advised to take rest for 3 months. The nature of
injuries caused to him requires follow up treatment and rest for
3 to 3½ months. Total laid up period of the petitioner comes to
4 months. During the said period, the petitioner might have spent
SCCH-14 22 MVC No.2121, 2173, 2174 &
2175/2015
amount for nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges apart
from incurring medical expenses. There is no documentary
evidence regarding nourishment, conveyance and attendant
charges incurred by the petitioner, but he has produced medical
bills amounting to Rs.10,733/- which are marked as Ex.P-15. The
said bills are supported by prescriptions at Ex.P-16. There is
nothing on record to disbelieve the medical bills, but bills at
Sl.No.13 is pertaining to the petitioner Radha. Hence, amount of
said bill i.e., Rs.935/- shall have to be deducted from total
amount. On such deduction, net amount of medical bills comes to
Rs.9,798/-. I am of the opinion that the petitioner Prakash is
entitled for a compensation of Rs.40,000/- towards pain and
sufferings, Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.15,000/-
towards nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges. He
might have lost income for 4 months and he is entitled for a
compensation of Rs.32,000/- towards loss of income during laid
up period.
26. PW.5:Dr. Ramachandra has stated about the injuries
of the petitioner Prakash, his difficulties, non union of fracture of
humerus with implants in situ. He has assessed that the petitioner
is suffering from permanent disability of 50.8% to left upper limb
which is permanent disability of 16.9% to whole body. He has
denied the suggestion that the fracture of the petitioner is united
and the petitioner is not suffering from permanent disability as
assessed. X-ray at Ex.P-28 confirms the non union of fracture and
existence of implants. However, PW.5 has given some extra
SCCH-14 23 MVC No.2121, 2173, 2174 &
2175/2015
weightage to difficulties i.e., @37%. Hence, I am of the opinion that
the disability assessed by the doctor is on the higher side. If limb
disability of the petitioner is restricted to 45%, it will meet the ends
of justice. Then, whole body disability of the petitioner comes to
15%. The said disability will come in the way of the petitioner in
doing day to day activities. He is facing several difficulties which
may persist in future resulting in loss of amenities. There is no
evidence to believe that the petitioner was removed from service or
he has resigned the job. In the absence of material evidence, I am
of the opinion that the petitioner is continued in the same job. The
disability will have no bearing on the work of the petitioner i.e., in
doing work of security guard. Therefore, there can not be any loss
of earning capacity. But, the petitioner has to live with disability.
The difficulties lead to loss of amenities. He has to undergo surgery
for removal of implants by spending amount. There is no
estimation as to cost of future surgery. Hence, I am of the opinion
that the petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-
towards disability, Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities and
Rs.10,000/- towards future medical expenses. Thus, the petitioner
Prakash is entitled for just and reasonable compensation as under:
1. Pain and suffering Rs. 40,000/-
2 Medical expenses Rs. 10,000/-
3. Nourishment, Rs. 15,000/-
conveyance and
attendant charges
4. Loss of income during Rs. 32,000/-
laid up period
5. Disability Rs.1,00,000/-
6. Loss of amenities Rs. 25,000/-
7. Future medical Rs. 10,000/-
expenses
Total Rs.2,32,000/-
SCCH-14 24 MVC No.2121, 2173, 2174 &
2175/2015
The petitioner Prakash is further entitled for interest @9%
p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment. Liability
aspect is discussed separately. Hence, I answer the issue as above.
27. ISSUE NO.2 IN MVC NO.2175/2015: It is pleaded
that the deceased was aged 3 years and she died due to injuries
sustained by her in the accident, that the petitioners are the
parents and LRs of the deceased. Hence, they have sought for
compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-. The respondents have generally
denied the averments of the petition as false and contended that
the compensation claimed by the petitioners is excessive and
exorbitant.
28. PW-1: Raju is the petitioner no.1 and he has reiterated
the averments of the petition. Except bare denials, nothing is
elicited from him. Copy of inquest panchanama with statement
and copy of PM report at Ex.P-8 and 9 reveal that the deceased
was aged 3 years and she died due to injuries sustained by her in
the accident. Age of deceased is shown as 3 years in ration card at
Ex.P-10. Birth certificate at Ex.P-11 reveals that the deceased was
born on 18.12.2011. It means, the deceased was aged 3 years on
the date of accident. The ration card and inquest panchanama
corroborate the evidence of PW-1 regarding relationship between
the petitioners and the deceased. There is nothing on record to
disbelieve the same. Hence, I hold that the petitioners are the
parents of the deceased whose death was due to alleged accident.
SCCH-14 25 MVC No.2121, 2173, 2174 &
2175/2015
The petitioners are the LRs of the deceased and are entitled for
compensation.
29. The deceased was aged 3 years. As per II Schedule of
M.V.Act, appropriate multiplier is 15. Since, the deceased was a
minor, her income shall have to be assessed notionally. I am of the
opinion that if notional income is assessed @Rs.20,000/- p.a., it
would meet the ends of justice. Then, loss of dependency of the
petitioners would be Rs.20,000X15=Rs.3,00,000/-. The petitioners
have lost love and affection of the deceased. They have spent
amount for funeral expenses of the deceased. Hence, they are
further entitled for a compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of
love and affection and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses.
Thus, the petitioners are entitled for just and reasonable
compensation as under:
1. Loss of dependency Rs.3,00,000/-
2 Loss of love and Rs. 50,000/-
affection
3. Funeral expenses Rs. 25,000/-
Total Rs.3,75,000/-
The petitioners are entitled for interest @9% p.a., from the
date of petition till the date of payment. Liability aspect is
discussed separately. Hence, I answer the issue as above.
LIABILITY
30. The respondents are the insurer and owner of
Chevrolet car bearing No.KA-04-D-9465. The accident has
SCCH-14 26 MVC No.2121, 2173, 2174 &
2175/2015
occurred due to sole negligence of the respondent no.2. Therefore,
the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation to the petitioners as stated above. The policy was in
force on the date of accident. There is nothing on record to believe
that the respondent no.2 has violated the terms and conditions of
the policy. Hence, the respondent no.1 is liable to indemnify the
respondent no.2 and to compensate the petitioners. Consequently,
I answer the issues regarding liability as above.
31. ISSUE No.3 in all the cases : In view of above
discussion and findings, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petitions filed U/sec.166 of M.V Act by the petitioners in MVC No.2121/2015, MVC No.2173/2015, MVC No. 2174/2015 and MVC No.2175/2015 are hereby partly allowed with cost.
[ The petitioner in MVC.No.2121/15 is entitled for a compensation of Rs.21,000/-, the petitioner in MVC No.2173/15 is entitled for a compensation of Rs.13,29,000/-, the petitioner in MVC No.2174/15 is entitled for a compensation of Rs.2,32,000/- and the petitioners in MVC No.2175/15 are entitled for a compensation of Rs.3,75,000/-. They are further entitled for SCCH-14 27 MVC No.2121, 2173, 2174 & 2175/2015 interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondents are jointly and severally is liable to pay compensation of Rs.21,000/-, Rs.13,29,000/-, Rs.2,32,000/- and Rs.3,75,000/- with interest to the said petitioners respectively. In view of policy, the respondent no.1 is directed to deposit the said amount with interest before the court within one month from the date of order.
The petitioners in MVC No.2175/2015 are entitled to share the compensation as under;
The petitioner No.1: Rs.1,25,000/- The petitioner No.2 : Rs.2,50,000/-
After deposit, entire amount and interest in MVC No.2121/15 shall be released in favour of petitioner Radha through account payee cheque with proper identification.
After deposit, Rs.2,50,000/- out of the compensation awarded to the petitioner in MVC No.2173/15 and Rs.1,00,000/- out of the share of the petitioner in MVC No.2174/15 shall be deposited in their respective names in any nationalized, scheduled or co-operative bank for a period of 3 years. Balance amount and interest in those cases shall be released in favour of SCCH-14 28 MVC No.2121, 2173, 2174 & 2175/2015 respective petitioners through account payee cheques with proper identification.
After deposit, Rs.50,000/- out of the compensation awarded to the petitioner no.1 and Rs.1,00,000/- out of the compensation awarded to the petitioner no.2 in MVC No.2175/15 shall be deposited in their respective names in any nationalized, scheduled or co-operative bank for a period of 3 years. Balance amount and interest shall be released in favour of respective petitioners through account payee cheques with proper identification.
The original Judgment shall be kept in MVC.No.2121/2015 and copy of the same in MVC.No.2173/2015, 2174/2015 and 2175/2015.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- each.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer and corrected by me and pronounced in the open court, on this the 6th day of JUNE 2016.) (Basavaraj Chengti) XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bangalore.
SCCH-14 29 MVC No.2121, 2173, 2174 &2175/2015 ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS: SCCH-14 PW.1 Raju.M PW.2 Prakash. B PW.3 Radha.N PW.4 S.Vasanthappa PW.5 Dr.S.Ramachandra Respondents : Nil Ex.P1 - Copy of FIR with complaint Ex.P2 - Copy of Spot panchanama Ex.P3 - Copy of IMV report Ex.P4 - Copy of wound certificate of Raju Ex.P5 - Discharge summary (2 in nos) Ex.P6 - Copy of Voter ID of Raju Ex.P7 - Medical bills( 20 in nos amounting to Rs.7,84,642/-) Ex.P8 - Copy of Inquest report with statement Ex.P9 - Copy of PM report Ex.P10 - Copy of Ration card Ex.P11 - Copy of Birth certificate of Parinita Ex.P12 - Copy of wound certificate Ex.P13 - Discharge summary Ex.P14 - Copy of Voter ID Ex.P15 - Medical Bills (13 in nos amounting to Rs.10,733/-) Ex.P16 - Prescriptions (11 in nos) Ex.P17 - X-ray Ex.P18 - Copy of Wound Certificate Ex.P19 - Copy of Voter ID of petitioner Radha Ex.P20 -Copy of charge sheet Ex.P21 -Salary certificate Ex.P22 -Copy of VAT certificate Ex.P23 -Copy of Enrollment under professional Tax Act Ex.P24 - OPD book pertaining to Raju Ex.P25 - MRI Report pertaining to Raju SCCH-14 30 MVC No.2121, 2173, 2174 & 2175/2015 Ex.P26 - X-ray and MRI Films Ex.P27 - OPD book pertaining to Prakash Ex.P28 - X-ray pertaining to Prakash Respondent's Nil XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bangalore.
SCCH-14 31 MVC No.2121, 2173, 2174 &2175/2015 Dt.06.06.2016 P-MGR R1-SM R2-MVM For Judgment Order pronounced in open court vide separate judgment.
ORDER The petitions filed U/sec.166 of M.V Act by the petitioners in MVC No.2121/2015, MVC No.2173/2015, MVC No. 2174/2015 and MVC No.2175/2015 are hereby partly allowed with cost.
[ The petitioner in MVC.No.2121/15 is entitled for a compensation of Rs.21,000/-, the petitioner in MVC No.2173/15 is entitled for a compensation of Rs.13,29,000/-, the petitioner in MVC No.2174/15 is entitled for a compensation of SCCH-14 32 MVC No.2121, 2173, 2174 & 2175/2015 Rs.2,32,000/- and the petitioners in MVC No.2175/15 are entitled for a compensation of Rs.3,75,000/-. They are further entitled for interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondents are jointly and severally is liable to pay compensation of Rs.21,000/-, Rs.13,29,000/-, Rs.2,32,000/- and Rs.3,75,000/- with interest to the said petitioners respectively. In view of policy, the respondent no.1 is directed to deposit the said amount with interest before the court within one month from the date of order.
The petitioners in MVC No.2175/2015 are entitled to share the compensation as under;
The petitioner No.1: Rs.1,25,000/- The petitioner No.2 : Rs.2,50,000/-
After deposit, entire amount and interest in MVC No.2121/15 shall be released in favour of petitioner Radha through account payee cheque with proper identification.
After deposit, Rs.2,50,000/- out of the compensation awarded to the petitioner in MVC No.2173/15 and Rs.1,00,000/- out of the share of the petitioner in MVC No.2174/15 shall be deposited in their respective names in any SCCH-14 33 MVC No.2121, 2173, 2174 & 2175/2015 nationalized, scheduled or co-operative bank for a period of 3 years. Balance amount and interest in those cases shall be released in favour of respective petitioners through account payee cheques with proper identification.
After deposit, Rs.50,000/- out of the compensation awarded to the petitioner no.1 and Rs.1,00,000/- out of the compensation awarded to the petitioner no.2 in MVC No.2175/15 shall be deposited in their respective names in any nationalized, scheduled or co-operative bank for a period of 3 years. Balance amount and interest shall be released in favour of respective petitioners through account payee cheques with proper identification.
The original Judgment shall be kept in MVC.No.2121/2015 and copy of the same in MVC.No.2173/2015, 2174/2015 and 2175/2015.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- each.
Draw award accordingly.
XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bangalore.
SCCH-14 34 MVC No.2121, 2173, 2174 &2175/2015 AWARD SCCH NO.14 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA : BANGALORE CITY MVC No.2121/2015 Petitioner in MVC No.2121/2015 RADHA.N W/o Prakash B Aged about 38 years, R/at No.196/1, Channanayakanapalaya, Bangalore North, Bangalore-560 073.
(By pleader Sri MGR) V/s Respondents 1. RELIANCE GENERAL INS.,CO.LTD., No.28, 5th floor, East wing, Centenary Building, M.G road, Bangalore.
(By pleader Sri SM)
2. MR. RAGAVENDRA. S S/o Sathish Pai, No.461, 2nd main road, 7th cross, Manjunath nagar, Nagasandra Post, Bangalore-560 073.
(By pleader Sri MNM) 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.
SCCH-14 35 MVC No.2121, 2173, 2174 &
2175/2015
(Rupees )
for the injuries sustained by the petitioner/Death of in
a motor Accident by vehicle No. WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before Sri/Smt.Basavaraj Chengti, XVI Addl.Judge, Member, Court of Small Cause, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. ORDER The petition filed U/sec.166 of M.V Act by the petitioner in MVC No.2121/2015 is hereby partly allowed with cost.
[ The petitioner in MVC.No.2121/15 is entitled for a compensation of Rs.21,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondents are jointly and severally is liable to pay compensation of Rs.21,000 with interest to the said petitioner. In view of policy, the respondent no.1 is directed to deposit the said amount with interest before the court within one month from the date of order.
SCCH-14 36 MVC No.2121, 2173, 2174 &2175/2015 After deposit, entire amount and interest in MVC No.2121/15 shall be released in favour of petitioner Radha through account payee cheque with proper identification.
The original Judgment shall be kept in MVC.No.2121/2015 and copy of the same in MVC.No.2173/2015, 2174/2015 and 2175/2015.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- each.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day of 2016.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: Bangalore SCCH-14 37 MVC No.2121, 2173, 2174 & 2175/2015 By the __________________________________ Petitioner/s Respondent No.1 No.2 __________________________________ Court fee paid on petition 10-00 Court fee paid on Powers 01-00 Court fee paid on I.A. Process Pleaders Fee _____________________________ Total Rs. ____________________________ Decree Drafted Scrutinised by MEMBER, M.A.C.T. METROPOLITAN: BANGALORE Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR SCCH-14 38 MVC No.2121, 2173, 2174 & 2175/2015 AWARD SCCH NO.14 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA : BANGALORE CITY MVC No.2173/2015 Petitioner in MVC No.2173/2015 RAJA.M S/o Marigowda, Aged about 36 years, R/at No.56/7, 1st cross, 42nd main, Marappa Layout, Rajarajeshwari Layout, Bangalore-560 098.
(By pleader Sri MGR) V/s Respondents 1. RELIANCE GENERAL INS.,CO.LTD., No.28, 5th floor, East wing, Centenary Building, M.G road, Bangalore.
(By pleader Sri SM)
2. MR. RAGAVENDRA. S S/o Sathish Pai, No.461, 2nd main road, 7th cross, Manjunath nagar, Nagasandra Post, Bangalore-560 073.
(By pleader Sri MNM) 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.
SCCH-14 39 MVC No.2121, 2173, 2174 &
2175/2015
(Rupees )
for the injuries sustained by the petitioner/Death of in
a motor Accident by vehicle No. WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before Sri/Smt.Basavaraj Chengti, XVI Addl.Judge, Member, Court of Small Cause, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. ORDER The petition filed U/sec.166 of M.V Act by the petitioner in MVC No.2173/2015 is hereby partly allowed with cost.
[ The petitioner in MVC No.2173/15 is entitled for a compensation of Rs.13,29,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondents are jointly and severally is liable to pay compensation of Rs.13,29,000/- with interest to the said petitioner. In view of policy, the respondent no.1 is directed to deposit the said amount with interest before the court within one month from the date of order.
SCCH-14 40 MVC No.2121, 2173, 2174 &2175/2015 After deposit, Rs.2,50,000/- out of the compensation awarded to the petitioner in MVC No.2173/15 shall be deposited in any nationalized, scheduled or co-operative bank for a period of 3 years. Balance amount and interest shall be released in favour of petitioner through account payee cheque with proper identification.
The original Judgment shall be kept in MVC.No.2121/2015 and copy of the same in MVC.No.2173/2015, 2174/2015 and 2175/2015.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- each.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day of 2016.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: Bangalore SCCH-14 41 MVC No.2121, 2173, 2174 & 2175/2015 By the __________________________________ Petitioner/s Respondent No.1 No.2 __________________________________ Court fee paid on petition 10-00 Court fee paid on Powers 01-00 Court fee paid on I.A. Process Pleaders Fee _____________________________ Total Rs. ____________________________ Decree Drafted Scrutinised by MEMBER, M.A.C.T. METROPOLITAN: BANGALORE Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR SCCH-14 42 MVC No.2121, 2173, 2174 & 2175/2015 AWARD SCCH NO.14 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA : BANGALORE CITY MVC No. 2174/2015 Petitioner in MVC No.2174/2015 PRAKASH. B S/o Basavaiah.K Aged about 48 years, R/at No.196/1, Channanayakanapalaya, Bangalore North, Bangalore-560 073.
(By pleader Sri MGR) V/s Respondents 1. RELIANCE GENERAL INS.,CO.LTD., No.28, 5th floor, East wing, Centenary Building, M.G road, Bangalore.
(By pleader Sri SM)
2. MR. RAGAVENDRA. S S/o Sathish Pai, No.461, 2nd main road, 7th cross, Manjunath nagar, Nagasandra Post, Bangalore-560 073.
(By pleader Sri MNM) WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the petitioner/s above named U/sec.166 of the M.V.C. Act, praying for SCCH-14 43 MVC No.2121, 2173, 2174 & 2175/2015 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 before Sri/Smt.Basavaraj Chengti, XVI Addl.Judge, Member, Court of Small Cause, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. ORDER The petition filed U/sec.166 of M.V Act by the petitioner in MVC No.2174/2015 is hereby partly allowed with cost.
[ The petitioner in MVC No.2174/15 is entitled for a compensation of Rs.2,32,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondents are jointly and severally is liable to pay compensation of Rs.2.32,000/- with interest to the said petitioner. In view of policy, the respondent no.1 is directed to deposit the said amount with interest before the court within one month from the date of order.
SCCH-14 44 MVC No.2121, 2173, 2174 &2175/2015 After deposit, Rs.1,00,000/- out of the compensation awarded to the petitioner in MVC No.2174/15 shall be deposited in any nationalized, scheduled or co-operative bank for a period of 3 years. Balance amount and interest shall be released in favour of petitioner through account payee cheque with proper identification.
The original Judgment shall be kept in MVC.No.2121/2015 and copy of the same in MVC.No.2173/2015, 2174/2015 and 2175/2015.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- each.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day of 2016.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: Bangalore SCCH-14 45 MVC No.2121, 2173, 2174 & 2175/2015 By the __________________________________ Petitioner/s Respondent No.1 No.2 __________________________________ Court fee paid on petition 10-00 Court fee paid on Powers 01-00 Court fee paid on I.A. Process Pleaders Fee _____________________________ Total Rs. ____________________________ Decree Drafted Scrutinised by MEMBER, M.A.C.T. METROPOLITAN: BANGALORE Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR SCCH-14 46 MVC No.2121, 2173, 2174 & 2175/2015 AWARD SCCH NO.14 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA : BANGALORE CITY MVC No. 2175/2015 Petitioner in MVC No.2175/2015 1. RAJA.M S/o Marigowda, Aged about 36 years,
2. ARCHANA. S W/o Raju.M Aged about 25 years, R/at No.56/7. 1st cross, 42nd main, Marappa layout, Rajarajeshwari layout, Bangalore-560 098.
V/s (By pleader Sri MGR) Respondents 1. RELIANCE GENERAL INS.,CO.LTD., No.28, 5th floor, East wing, Centenary Building, M.G road, Bangalore.
(By pleader Sri SM)
2. MR. RAGAVENDRA. S S/o Sathish Pai, No.461, 2nd main road, 7th cross, Manjunath nagar, Nagasandra Post, Bangalore-560 073.
(By pleader Sri MNM) SCCH-14 47 MVC No.2121, 2173, 2174 & 2175/2015 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 before Sri/Smt.Basavaraj Chengti, XVI Addl.Judge, Member, Court of Small Cause, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. ORDER The petition filed U/sec.166 of M.V Act by the petitioners in MVC No.2175/2015 are hereby partly allowed with cost.
[ The petitioners in MVC No.2175/15 are entitled for a compensation of Rs.3,75,000/-. They are further entitled for interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondents are jointly and severally is liable to pay compensation of Rs.3,75,000/- with interest to the said petitioners respectively. In view of policy, the respondent no.1 is directed to SCCH-14 48 MVC No.2121, 2173, 2174 & 2175/2015 deposit the said amount with interest before the court within one month from the date of order.
The petitioners in MVC No.2175/2015 are entitled to share the compensation as under;
The petitioner No.1: Rs.1,25,000/- The petitioner No.2 : Rs.2,50,000/-
After deposit, Rs.50,000/- out of the compensation awarded to the petitioner no.1 and Rs.1,00,000/- out of the compensation awarded to the petitioner no.2 in MVC No.2175/15 shall be deposited in their respective names in any nationalized, scheduled or co-operative bank for a period of 3 years. Balance amount and interest shall be released in favour of respective petitioners through account payee cheques with proper identification.
The original Judgment shall be kept in MVC.No.2121/2015 and copy of the same in MVC.No.2173/2015, 2174/2015 and 2175/2015.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- each.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day of 2016.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: Bangalore SCCH-14 49 MVC No.2121, 2173, 2174 & 2175/2015 By the __________________________________ Petitioner/s Respondent No.1 No.2 __________________________________ Court fee paid on petition 10-00 Court fee paid on Powers 01-00 Court fee paid on I.A. Process Pleaders Fee _____________________________ Total Rs. ____________________________ Decree Drafted Scrutinised by MEMBER, M.A.C.T. METROPOLITAN: BANGALORE Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR SCCH-14 50 MVC No.2121, 2173, 2174 & 2175/2015