Bangalore District Court
Sri.Rajath.D.L vs The New India Assurance on 18 February, 2020
BEFORE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE CITY.
SCCH14
PRESENT: SRI. SREEPADA N., B.Com.,L.L.M.
Member, MACT,
XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes,
BANGALORE.
MVC No.3368/2017
Dated this the 18th day of February2020
Petitioner/s : Sri.Rajath.D.L.
S/o Lingaraj,
Aged about 20 years,
Residing at near Anganawadi,
Bannerghatta Road,
Kolliform Layout,
Pillaganahalli,
V/
Gottigere Post,
s Bengaluru560 083.
(By pleader Sri.ST)
Respondent/s: 1.The New India Assurance
Company Ltd.,
Do.1, (670100) cdu1 No.40,
Lakshmi Complex, K.R.Road,
Bengaluru560 002.
(Policy No.
67010031150100003119
valid from 01012016 to
31122016)
SCCH14 2 MVC NO.3368/2017
(By pleader Sri.VM)
2. M/s Sharma Transports,
No.27/B, Bazaar Street,
Anekal at and Taluk,
Bengaluru District560 106.
Present Address,
M/s Sharma Transports
No.328, Sangeetha Bhavan,
TSP Road, Kalasipalyam,
Bengaluru560 002.
(RC Owner of the Swaraj
Mazada Reg.No.KA51C1673)
(By pleader Sri.RN)
JUDGMENT
This petition is filed by the petitioner U/s 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.42,00,000/ for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident.
2. Brief averments of the petition are as under:
The petitioner was aged 20 years and was Driver cum Cement Deliveryman and earning Rs.15,000/ per month.SCCH14 3 MVC NO.3368/2017
On 28112016 at about 10.00 a.m., when the Petitioner and one pillion rider complainant Deepak T.C. were going by the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA05HY 6915 on Nice road from Tumkur road side towards Bannerghatta road, on the extreme left side, at that time one Mini bus Swaraz Mazda bearing Reg.No.KA51C1673 driven by its driver in a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner so as endanger to human life without observing traffic rules and regulations driver took his vehicle suddenly towards extreme left side of the road and hit to the motor cycle and Swaraj Mazda brining motor cycle 10 to 15 feet from the accident spot. Due to the accident, the Petitioner and pillion rider fell down and sustained grievous injuries. It is further submitted that, immediately after the accident, he was shifted to MED SOL Hospital wherein admitted as an inpatient and discharged with an advice of the doctor to take periodical check up and advised him to take bed rest and he has spent Rs.7,00,000/ towards medical, hospital, expenses, conveyance and nourishments etc.,. It is further submitted that, due to the accidental injuries Petitioner is under going deep mental shock, pain and sufferings and untold hardship. It is further submitted that, the accident SCCH14 4 MVC NO.3368/2017 occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Swaraj Mazda by its Driver. It is further submitted that, the Kengeri Police have registered the case against the driver of the said Swaraj Mazda for the offences punishable u/s 279 and 337 of IPC. The respondent No.2 being owner and respondent No.1 being insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.42,00,000/ with court cost and interest.
3. In pursuance of the notice, the respondent No.1 and 2 have appeared before this tribunal through their respective counsels and filed their separate written statements.
Further contended that, both respondents No.1 and 2 has denied the case of the petitioner as false and contended that the petition is not at all maintainable either in law or on facts. Further contended that, both respondents No.1 and 2 have denied the age avocation and income of the deceased. Further contended that, the compensation and interest as claimed by the petitioners are exorbitant and excessive.
SCCH14 5 MVC NO.3368/2017Further the Respondent No.1 contended that, there is a considerable delay of one day in filing delay the complaint to police and delay has not been explained. Further contended that, the injured was not wearing prescribed ISI marked helmet and hence sustained injuries as claimed by him. The rider himself is responsible for his injury by violating the mandatory provisions of law under the motor vehicle Act and Rules and responsible for his injury and hence he is not entitled for any compensation. Further denies the very occurrence of the accident and involvement of the Swaraj Mazda bearing Reg.No.KA51C1673 as the same is not within the knowledge of this Respondent. Further contended that, the rider of the vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence which was involved in the alleged accident and hence the petition is not maintainable against this Respondent.
Further Respondent No.2 contended that, the insurance policy was in force and its liability if any is subject to terms and conditions of the policy was valid as on the date of the accident. Further contended that, the driver of the offending vehicle was having valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident. Further SCCH14 6 MVC NO.3368/2017 contended that, the Electronic City Traffic Police with an intention to help the Petitioner have registered a false criminal case against the driver of the offending vehicle. Hence both Respondents No.1 and 2 have sought for dismissal of the petition with costs.
4. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues were framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, he sustained grievous injuries in the nature of permanent disablement on 28112016 at about 10.00 a.m., near Nice Road and Mysore road Bridge Kengeri, Bengaluru, in an accident arising due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Mini Bus bearing Reg.No.KA 51C1673?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?SCCH14 7 MVC NO.3368/2017
3. What Order or Award?
5. During the evidence, the petitioner has examined himself as PW.1 and got marked 10 documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10. Further, Medical Record Keeper at MEDSOL Hospital, Bengaluru as PW.2 and got marked 3 documents at Ex.P.11 to 13. Further, Dr.Santosh.A, (Ast Prof) Dept of Oral Maxillofacial Surgery V.S.Dental College and Hospital (KIMS), Bengaluru as PW.3 and got marked one document at Ex.P.14. On the other hand, the Respondent No.1 and 2 have not lead any oral or documentary 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 the Affirmative.
Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative,.
Issue No.3 : As per final order :
for the following:
REASONS
8. ISSUE NO.1: In order to prove the actionable negligence, the petitioner himself entered into witness box SCCH14 8 MVC NO.3368/2017 and filed affidavit in lieu of examinationinchief and got examined as P.W.1. He reiterates the averments and the allegations made in the petition. He has deposed that, the accident occurred entirely due to rash and negligent driving of the Mini Bus bearing Reg.No.KA51C1673 by its driver. During the course of crossexamination he admitted that, he has valid driving licence to ride the motor cycle and he produced the same as per Ex.P.9. Further admits that, the car and Jeep are called as four wheelers except them no other vehicles are calling as four wheeler vehicle. Further admits that, pillion rider of his motor cycle stated with the doctor in the Hospital that, four wheeler hit to their two wheeler vehicle. Further admits that, in IMV report it is mentioned that, no damages were caused to the mini bus bearing Reg.No.KA51C1673. Further stated that, when himself and Deepak were proceeding in a motor cycle at Bannerghatta Nice road, at that time Swaraj Mazda vehicle in the process of over taking their motor cycle side mirror of their motor cycle fixed to Swaraj Mazda and it carried some distance. Further stated that, in IMV report it is not mentioned that mirror has been damaged. Further denied that, the damages which caused to his motor cycle has been occurred due to dash of their motor cycle by another SCCH14 9 MVC NO.3368/2017 on going vehicle. Further denied that, he himself rode the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to a car or jeep. Further denied that, mini bus is not involved in the accident.
9. The respondent No.1 and 2 have taken up specific defence about the denial of the case of the petitioner. Further the Respondent No.2 contended that, the police have registered false case against his vehicle to help the Petitioner. The accident had occurred only due to rash and negligent riding of the Petitioner himself. The Respondent No.1 further contended that, the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident and the delay of one day in filing the complaint is not properly explained. Further taken up contention that, offending vehicle was not involved in the accident. The driver of the offending vehicle has no driving licence to drive the said vehicle as such the petition is not maintainable etc.,.
10. The petitioner, in support of his oral evidence has relied upon various copies of police documents produced at Ex.P.1 to 5 i.e., FIR with statement, spot mahazar with sketch, IMV report, wound certificate and SCCH14 10 MVC NO.3368/2017 charge sheet. Ex.P.1 FIR with statement of the pillion rider of the Petitioner motor cycle by name Deepak S/o Chandrashekar reveals that, on 28112016 at about 10.00 a.m., himself and Petitioner were proceeding in the motor cycle of the Petitioner bearing Reg.No.KA05HY6915 on nice road from Tumkur road towards Bannerghatta and Petitioner was riding the said motor cycle and when they came near Mysore road bridge on the left side of the road at that time mini bus came from same direction towards their right side in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly turned the said mini bus towards left side as a result of which their vehicle dashed to the mini bus and himself and Petitioner fell down on the road, after the accident mini bus driver fled away along with his vehicle public have shifted them to the Hospital in ambulance etc.,. Accordingly, the Kengeri Traffic police have registered criminal case against the driver of the mini bus in their Cr.No.321/2018 for the offences punishable U/s 279 and 337 of the IPC R/w Section 134(A & B) R/w 187 of IMV Act.
Ex.P.2 is the spot mahazar with sketch reveals that, the accident road is nice road and width of the said road is about 40 feet and at the time of the accident Petitioner was coming along with complainant in his motor cycle on the SCCH14 11 MVC NO.3368/2017 left side of the road and at the same time offending vehicle also came in the same direction from Tumkur road towards Bannerghatta and at the time of the accident driver of mini bus took his vehicle towards left side where the Petitioner was coming in his motor cycle as a result of which motor cycle of the Petitioner touched to the offending vehicle as a result of which both Petitioner and pillion rider fell down. On careful scrutiny of the sketch with mahazar it reveals that, due to fault of the driver of the offending mini bus only the accident had occurred. Further according to Ex.P.3 front left side indicator, front left side crush guard and head light mask of the Petitioner motor cycle has been damaged and no visible damages were caused to the offending vehicle. Further IMV Inspector opinions that, the cause of the accident was not due to any mechanical defects of the both vehicles and break system of the both vehicles were in order. So, it appears that, due to sole negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle only the accident had occurred. Further according to Ex.P.5 charge sheet reveals that, the concerned police after conducting investigation have filed charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offenses punishable under section 279, 337 and 338 of IPC R/w Section 134 (A SCCH14 12 MVC NO.3368/2017 and B) and 187 of IMV Act. The filing of the charge sheet primafaice evidence about the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle only the accident had occurred.
Even though the Respondent No.1 has taken up contention that, the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident and mini bus is different from four wheeler and in the MLC and statement of complainant it is mentioned that, four wheeler is involved in the accident and after one day from the date of the accident mini bus has been falsely implicated in this case etc.,. Admittedly, in the complaint itself complainant stated that, mini bus was involved in the accident. Even the Respondent No.2 who is the owner of the offending vehicle stated that, offending vehicle is involved in the accident but denied the negligence part. Further the Respondent No.1 has not taken pain to examine the Respondent No.2 or driver of the offending vehicle. Merely in hospital records it is mentioned as four wheeler was caused to the accident is not a ground to say that offending vehicle was not involved in the accident.
Under these circumstances, the evidence of P.W.1, coupled with the contents of the police documents, SCCH14 13 MVC NO.3368/2017 establishes that, the accident was caused solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. The petitioner has produced the wound certificate at Ex.P.4, which indicates that, the petitioner had sustained injuries in the said accident. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that, the petitioner has established the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and he has sustained injuries in the said accident. Accordingly, issue No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.
Issue No. 2:
11. The petitioner has sustained injuries in the said accident. He has relied upon Ex.P.4 wound certificate and Ex.P.6 discharge summary issued by MEDSOL Hospital, which reveals that, the petitioner had sustained following injury i.e., multiple abrasions present over distal aspect of right hand, multiple abrasions ranging present over dorsal aspect of left hand, tongue is divided in to two pieces, fracture of middle of lower joint, fracture of ramus of left side of lower joint and frontal region of brain is contused. According to Ex.P.4 wound certificate injuries No.1 and 2 are simple in nature and injuries No.3 to 6 are grievous in SCCH14 14 MVC NO.3368/2017 nature. In view of the findings recorded on issue No.1, the petitioner has suffered injuries because of the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the mini bus. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for the compensation.
12. It is the case of the petitioner that, after the accident he was shifted to MEDSOL Hospital, wherein he was admitted as an inpatient from 28112016 to 1212 2016 for a period of 15 days and he was operated with open reduction and internal fixation with 3D construction place done on 30112016 and discharged with an advise for regular follow up treatment. In this regard he has produced discharge summary at Ex.P.6. The contents of the respective medical documents makes it very clear with regard to the gravity of the injuries sustained by the petitioner. As per the evidence of the petitioner, he is still under treatment and could not resume his avocation and daily activities till date. By taking into consideration of the duration of the treatment as Inpatient, Outpatient, continued follow up, I am of the considered opinion, the petitioner has suffered severely due to the accidental injuries. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of a sum of Rs.40,000/ towards Pain and sufferings.
SCCH14 15 MVC NO.3368/2017Further, it can be said that the petitioner must have incurred some amount for transportation and also spent some amount towards attendant charges, food and nourishment. Thus, I deem it just and proper to award Rs.15,000/ towards Attendant, food, conveyance and other incidental expenses.
13. It is stated in the petition as well as in the evidence of P.W.1 that, he has spent Rs.10,00,000/ towards hospital charges, medicines, conveyance, nourishment etc. In order to substantiate the same, the petitioner has produced 42Medical Bills at Ex.P.7 amounting to Rs.3,16,815.64. Admittedly, Sl.No.1 is the cash detailed bill but it has not been prepared in the hospital logo and no GST and CST has been deducted on it. Further, Sl.No.4 is consolidated pharmacy bill but details of this medical bills is not produced. Moreover, prescriptions to support this also not been produced. Therefore, the Petitioner is not entitled the amount of this bill. Further, Sl.No.11, 21, 24,26, 27, 31, 32, 34, 40, 42 are hand writing bills and no supporting prescriptions are produced as such Petitioner is not entitled for the amount of these bills which comes around Rs.22,397/. Accordingly Petitioner is SCCH14 16 MVC NO.3368/2017 entitled only Rs.3,16,815/ Rs.22,3987/ = Rs.2,94,418/. Further, Rs.2,94,418/ Rs.53,129/ = Rs.2,41,289/. Taking into consideration of the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner must have incurred expenses towards medicines and treatment. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that, the petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.2,41,289/ which can be rounded off Rs.2,41,500/ towards Medical Expenses.
14. The case of the petitioner is that, at the time of accident he was hale and healthy and was Driver cum cement in deliveryman in TATA Ace vehicle at Sri.Venkateshwara Traders and earning Rs.15,000/ per month. He was contributing his entire income to maintain his family. Due to accidental injuries, he could not attend his work, resulted in loss of earning and earning capacity and put to great financial hardship. In order to substantiate the avocation and earnings of the petitioner, he has not produced any material evidence and also to show that he was earning Rs.15,000/ per month. The petitioner has not produced any documents to show that he is not doing any work after the accident. Except the oral SCCH14 17 MVC NO.3368/2017 evidence he has not produced any documents to show that, he has suffered loss of earnings during the period of treatment. Further he has produced driving licence at Ex.P.9 it shows that, he has driving licence to ride the motor cycle with gear and light motor vehicle but he has not holding driving licence of Tata Ace vehicle. In the absence of material evidence and taking into consideration of the age of the petitioner and his avocation and present day condition, if the monthly income of the petitioner is inferred at Rs.9,000/ p.m., that would meet the ends of justice. The nature of injuries requires followup treatment. Taking all these facts into consideration, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner could not attend to his avocation at least for a period of three months i.e., during the period of treatment and bed rest. Hence, the compensation of Rs.27,000/ is awarded towards Loss of income during the period of treatment.
15. It is the evidence of PW.1 that, due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he is not recovered and he is getting unbearable pain often. On account of the said accidental injuries, his face and head and his remembrance is lost and he is not able to bite hard food he is eating only SCCH14 18 MVC NO.3368/2017 soft food and juice. Not able to open mouth as normal man, not able to talk as normal man and dis figuration occurred in his face some upper teeth are lost and some shaking lower jaw, 6 teeth lost and other fully damaged and entire lower side jaw were lost lower jaw will be reconstructed and fixed entire teeths. Not able to ride any type of vehicle. Due to left sub condyler fracture. He is not able to walk frequently not able to lift small and heavy weights. Not able to put things on his head not able to sit by cross leg sitting. If he walk small distance swelling comes over left leg and he is unmarried person and he is lost marriage prospectus he suffered through out his life etc.,.
In this regard he has examined Medical Record Keeper at MEDSOL Hospital, Bengaluru as PW.2, he has produced Ex.P.12 inpatient record and Ex.P.13 xray (6 in nos). During the course of crossexamination he admits that, he does not know who has treated the patient. Further stated that, he does not know the contents of Ex.P.12 and 13. So, his evidence is not much helpful to the Petitioner.
Further, the Petitioner also examined Dr.Santosh.A Reader (Ast Prof) Department of Oral Maxillofacial Surgery in V.S.Dental College and Hospital(KIMS) Bengaluru as SCCH14 19 MVC NO.3368/2017 PW.3, he has produced Ex.P.14 is the follow up record from 2017 to December2019 and he deposed before this tribunal that, lower half of the face of shattered and there was through and through defendant gloving injury exposing the fracture mandible. There were multiple laceration and skin abrasion in lower third of face. There was laceration seen over the nose too and also his tongue was suture open reduction and internal fixation was done for communicated fractured mandible with plates and screws. There were missing of 31 and 32 lower anterior teeth were loss of surrounding alveolar bone around them and 24 and 26 maxillary left posterior teeth are also missing root canal is done etc.,. Further, he has assessed functional loss of due to missing lower left anterior teeth 22.5% due lower jaw at 7.5% and scar on the nose at 2.5%. Accordingly, he assessed 32.5% of functional and esthetic loss.
During the course of cross examination he admits as under;
He has not personally treated to the Petitioner from the date of admission till his discharge. After regaining the conscious Petitioner told the history of the accident and the same is mentioned in his affidavit. He has not seen the SCCH14 20 MVC NO.3368/2017 MLC or wound certificate of the Petitioner. Further admits that, MLC is part of inpatient. Further admits that, at the time of admission patient told the history of the accident as hit by four wheeler. After his discharge first time he stated that, he was hit by Swaraj Mazda Mini Bus. Further admits that, at the time of the discharge Petitioner was fit for discharge. Further admits that, total 32.5% of functional and esthetic loss is not mentioned in follow up treatment record as well as in our treatment records. Petitioner has sustained injury on his face and oral cavity. Further admits that, 32.5% of disability pertaining to face and oral cavity of Petitioner. Further admits that, 1/3rd portion of particular limb disability is to be taken as whole body disability. Further admits that, fractures are united and injuries also healed. Further admits that, injuries or disability of the Petitioner is not affected to the manual labourer work. Recently he conducted xray on 1112 2019 by the has not produced the same before this tribunal. He has not conducted any root canal treatment to the Petitioner. It is denied that, 32.5% of functional and esthetic loss assessed by him on higher side.
Admittedly the Petitioner has sustained injuries on his face and oral cavity. Even percentage of disability as SCCH14 21 MVC NO.3368/2017 shown by him in the affidavit is not at all mentioned in follow up treatment records and as well as his treatment records. Even he separately assessed whole body disability. Further he himself admitted that, 1/3rd portion of particular limb disability to be taken as whole body disability. Moreover, at the time of the discharge his condition was stable. Therefore, I am of the opinion that, 1/3rd portion of function and esthetic loss assessed by PW.2 is to be taken as whole body disability. Further, the Petitioner has taken long treatment and he has no problems to do his day to day activities as per all the records by produced by PW.1 to 3 in this case. So, by considering the Ex.P.4,6,12 to 14 and also oral evidence of PW.1 and 3 if the disability is taken at 10% to the whole body it would be both justifiable and appropriate.
As per police records and hospital records his age was 20 years at the time of accident. Further, the PW.1 has produced notarized copy of his SSLC marks card and driving licence marked at Ex.P.8 and 9. According to them, date of birth of the Petitioner mentioned as 26111997 and the accident had occurred in the year2016. According to them petitioner was aged 19 years at the time of accident. Under such circumstances, it can safely be presumed that, SCCH14 22 MVC NO.3368/2017 the age of the petitioner was 19 years as on the date of the accident. Therefore, the proper multiplier applicable to the petitioner is '18'. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.9,000/x12x18x10%=Rs.1,94,400/ which can be rounded off Rs.1,94,500/ towards Loss of Future Earnings.
16. The petitioner has contended that, due to his disability he unable to do work as he was doing before the accident. However, in this regard he has not placed any materials before this Tribunal regarding his occupation. PW.3 Doctor in his evidence deposed before the tribunal that, lower half of the face of shattered and there was through and through defendantgloving injury exposing the fracture mandible. There were multiple laceration and skin abrasion in lower third of face. There was laceration seen over the nose too and also his tongue was suture open reduction and internal fixation was done for communicated fractured mandible with plates and screws. There were missing of 31 and 32 lower anterior teeth were loss of surrounding alveolar bone around them and 24 and 26 maxillary left posterior teeth are also missing root canal is SCCH14 23 MVC NO.3368/2017 done etc., Similarly PW.1 also stated that, due to the accident, his face and head and his remembrance is lost and he is not able to bite hard food he is eating only soft food and juice. Not able to open mouth as normal man, not able to talk as normal man and dis figuration occurred in his face some upper teeth are lost and some shaking lower jaw, 6 teeth lost and other fully damaged and entire lower side jaw were lost lower jaw will be reconstructed and fixed entire teeths. Not able to ride any type of vehicle. Due to left sub condyler fracture. He is not able to walk frequently not able to lift small and heavy weights. Not able to put things on his head not able to sit by cross leg sitting. If he walk small distance swelling comes over left leg and he is unmarried person and he is lost marriage prospectus he suffered through out his life etc.,. Any how except evidence of PW.3 and Ex.P.4,6,12 to 14 no other materials forthcoming from the side of the petitioner in this regard. Any how by considering overall evidence I am of the view that petitioner has loss of amenities in his life but it is not as contended by PW.1 and 3, hence petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.30,000/ towards loss of amenities.
SCCH14 24 MVC NO.3368/201717. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that, the petitioner is entitled for the compensation under the following heads;
1. Pain and suffering. : Rs. 40,000/
2. Food and Nourishment, : Rs. 15,000/ conveyance and attendant charges.
3. Medical expenses : Rs. 2,41,500/
4. Loss of income during the : Rs. 27,000/ period of treatment.
5. Loss of Future earnings. : Rs. 1,94,500/
6. Loss of amenities Rs. 30,000/
7. Future Medical expenses. : Rs. Total Rs. 5,48,000/ So, the petitioner is entitled for the total compensation of Rs.5,48,000/.
Liability:
18. In this case, as already discussed in the Issue No.1 that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Mini Bus/Swaraj Mazada bearing Reg.No.KA51D1673 by its driver. The Respondent No.1 being the owner and Respondent No.2 being the insurer of the offending vehicle is not in dispute.
SCCH14 25 MVC NO.3368/2017The Respondent No.1 has taken up specific defence that, offending vehicle was not involved in the accident but as mentioned medical records four wheeler was involved in the accident but colluding with police and Respondent No.2 filed false case against the insured vehicle etc.,. Admittedly, Swaraj Mazada mini bus also considered to be a four wheeler and in order to prove that, offending vehicle was not involved in the accident, the Respondent No.1 has not placed any materials before this tribunal. Hence, the respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Hence, the Respondent No.1 to indemnify the Respondent No.2 and to pay compensation to the Petitioner.
By considering the present days FD rate of interest in the nationalized bank it is just and necessary to direct the respondent No.1 to pay the compensation amount with interest at the rate of 7% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment. Accordingly, I answered Issue No.2 Partly in the Affirmative.
19. ISSUE No.3: In view of above discussion and findings, I proceed to pass the following:
SCCH14 26 MVC NO.3368/2017ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.5,48,000/ with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.
The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner with interest. The respondent No.1 being insurer is liable to deposit the amount before Tribunal within two months from the date of this order.
After deposit, 50%shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner in any nationalized or scheduled bank for a period of 5 years and remaining balance amount with accrued interest shall be released in his favour through RTGS/NEFT by way of Epayment.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, and transcription of the same was corrected by me and pronounced in the open court, on this the 18th day of February - 2020).
(Sreepada N) XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bangalore.SCCH14 27 MVC NO.3368/2017
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: PW1 : Sri.Rajath.D.L. @ Rajath PW2 : Sri.Raghu PW3 : Dr.Santhosh.A. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: Ex.P.1 : True copy of FIR with statement Ex.P.2 : True copy of spot mahazar with sketch Ex.P.3 : True copy of IMV report Ex.P.4 : True copy of wound certificate Ex.P.5 : True copy of charge sheet Ex.P.6 : Attested copy of discharge summary Ex.P.7 : Medical bills (42 in nos) Ex.P.8 : Notarized copy of my SSLC marks card Ex.P.9 : Notarized copy of my driving licence Ex.P.10 : One Xray Ex.P.11 : Authorization Letter Ex.P.12 : Inpatient record Ex.P.13 : Xray (6 in nos) Ex.P.14 : Follow up record from 2017 to December 2019 (12 sheets) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS: NIL LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS: NIL XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bangalore.