Bangalore District Court
Shri Arunachala Dixit G vs Shri Rohith Kumar on 28 April, 2016
Before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bangalore
(SCCH-8)
Present: Shri P.J. Somashekar B.A., LL.B.,
XII Additional Small Causes Judge
and Member, M.A.C.T., Bangalore.
Dated this the 28th day of April 2016
M.V.C.No.778/2015
Petitioner Shri Arunachala Dixit G.,
Son of Late Gundappa Dixit N.,
Aged about 42 years,
Residing at No.1114, 1st floor, 22nd
cross, Banashankari 2nd stage,
Bengaluru-560 070.
(Shri M.V.Vishwanath, Advocate)
V/s
Respondents 1. Shri Rohith Kumar,
Son of Praveen Kumar,
Residing at No.497/5, 33rd A
Cross, 9th Main road,
Jayanagar 4th block,
Bengaluru-560 011.
(R.C.Owner of Yamaha Motor
Cycle bearing registration No.KA-
05-HIGH SPEED-200)
(Smt.Vaijanth B., Advocate)
2. M/s Bajaj Alliance General
Insurance Co. Ltd., No.1/2,
Golden--Heights Complex,
4th floor, 4th main, 59th cross,
2 SCCH-8 MVC 778/2015
4th M.Block, Rajajinagar,
Bengaluru-560 010.
(Insurer of Yamaha Motor Cycle
Bearing registration No.KA-05-HS-
200)
Vide policy No.OG-15-170-1-1802-
00037212 valid from 27.12.2014
to 26.12.2015)
(Shri V.Shri Hari Naidu, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This is a claim petition filed by the petitioner against the respondents under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, for seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident.
2. The brief facts of the claim petition are as under:
The petitioner in his claim petition has alleged that, on 14.2.2015 at about 10.30 a.m., he was proceeding in a motor cycle bearing No.KA-01-ET-7947 carefully and cautiously by observing all the traffic rules and regulations from South-North on I Main road, N.R.Colony, Bengaluru, when he was reached near Syndicate Bank, the rider of the 3 SCCH-8 MVC 778/2015 Yamaha motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-05-HS-200 has rode the same in a rash and negligent manner without observing the traffic rules and regulations dashed against his motor cycle. Due to the said impact, he was fell down and sustained grievous injuries. So, immediately he was shifted to Venlakh hospital, Chamarajpet, Bengaluru, wherein he took the treatment as inpatient and underwent surgery for open reduction and internal fixation by spending huge amount.
3. Prior to the accident he was hale and healthy aged about 51 years and doing Purohit work by getting monthly income of Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/-. Due to the accidental injuries, he could not do the work as before. The accident in question was taken place on account of rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-05-HS-200. Thereby, Banashankari Traffic Police have registered the case against the rider of the offending vehicle in their police station Crime 4 SCCH-8 MVC 778/2015 No.24/2015 for the offences punishable u/s 279 and 337 of IPC and S.134(a) & (b) R/w S. 187 of IMV Act. The respondent Nos.1 & 2 being the owner and insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and prays for allow the claim petition.
4. In response of the notice, the respondents were appeared through their respective counsel and filed their independent written statement.
5.The respondent No.1 being the owner of the offending vehicle in his written statement has alleged that the claim petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable in law or on facts and he has denied that he being the rider of the motor cycle has rode the same in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the motor cycle which belongs to the petitioner, as a result the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries and he has alleged that the petitioner was riding the vehicle without wearing the helmet and the accident was occurred on his own negligence and 5 SCCH-8 MVC 778/2015 the accident was not taken place on account of his rash and negligent riding and he was holding driving license as on the date of alleged accident to ride the motor cycle. The place of occurrence is a busy area and it is the peak hour of morning traffic all the school, college and office going persons are rushing towards their working place, apart from that, place of occurrence is the Market area of N.R. Colony, so the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner who entered the main road suddenly breaking the traffic rules. So, he is not responsible for the accident and prays for reject the claim petition.
6.The respondent No.2 being the insurer of the offending vehicle in its written statement has alleged that the claim petition filed by the petitioner is bad for non- joinder of necessary and proper parties, since the petitioner has not impleaded the owner and the insurer of the motor cycle and the rider was not holding valid and effective driving license to ride the motor cycle. So, he is not liable 6 SCCH-8 MVC 778/2015 to pay the compensation and he has denied the averments made in column Nos. 1 to 6, 8 to 18 of the claim petition and denied that the petitioner was proceeding in a motor cycle slowly and cautiously by observing all traffic rules and regulations, the rider of the offending vehicle has rode the same in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the motor cycle which belongs to the petitioner, due to the said impact, the petitioner was fell down and sustained grievous injuries and took the treatment by spending huge amount and he has alleged that the accident in question was taken place due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motor cycle bearing No.KA-01-ET-7947, but he has admitted about the issuance of the policy in respect of offending vehicle in favour of respondent No.1 and its liability is subject to terms and conditions of the policy and the policy was valid from 27.12.2014 to 26.12.2015 and he has alleged that either the owner of the vehicle nor the jurisdictional police have not complied the mandatory 7 SCCH-8 MVC 778/2015 provisions u/s 134(c) and 158(6) of the M.V. Act in furnishing the better particulars and prays for reject the claim petition.
7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following issues are framed.
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he has sustained grievous injuries as mentioned in column No.11, in a road traffic accident on 14.2.2015 at about 10.30 a.m. near Syndicate Bank, 9th cross junction, 1st main road, N.R.Colony, Bengaluru due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the Yamaha motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-05- HS-200?
2. Whether petitioner is entitled for any compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?
3. What Order or Award?
8. The petitioner in order to prove his case has examined himself as PW1 and got marked the documents 8 SCCH-8 MVC 778/2015 as Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 and he has examined one witness on his behalf as PW2 and got marked the documents as Ex.P13 and Ex.P14. The respondents have not examined any witness nor marked any documents on their behalf.
9. Heard arguments on both side.
10. My finding on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1: Affirmative
Issue No.2: Partly affirmative
Issue No.3: As per the final order
for the following.
REASONS
11. Issue No.1:
The petitioner being said to be the injured has approached this court on the ground that on 14.2.2015 at about 10.30 a.m. he was proceeding in a motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-01-ET-7947 slowly and cautiously by observing all the traffic rules and regulations but the rider of the motor cycle motor cycle has rode the 9 SCCH-8 MVC 778/2015 same in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the motor cycle. Due to the said impact, he has sustained grievous injuries. So, immediately he was shifted to Venlakh Hospital, wherein he took the treatment as inpatient and underwent surgery. Thereby, he has filed the instant claim petition against the respondents.
12. The petitioner in order to prove his case has filed his affidavit as his chief-examination as PW1, in which has stated that on 14.2.2015 at about 10.30 a.m., he was proceeding in a motor cycle bearing No.KA-01-ET-7947 carefully and cautiously by observing all the traffic rules and regulations from South-North on 1st Main road, N.R.Colony, Bengaluru, when he was reached near Syndicate Bank, the rider of the Yamaha motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-05-HS-200 has rode the same in a road and negligent manner without observing the traffic rules and regulations dashed against his motor cycle. Due to the said impact, he was fell down and sustained grievous 10 SCCH-8 MVC 778/2015 injuries. So, immediately he was shifted to Venlakh hospital, Chamarajpet, Bengaluru wherein he took the treatment as inpatient and underwent surgery for open reduction and internal fixation and took the treatment by spending Rs.1,00,000/- towards treatment. The accident in question was taken place on the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the Yamaha motor cycle. Thereby, the Bhanashankari Traffic Police have registered the case against the rider of the offending vehicle in their police station Crime No.24/2015 for the offences punishable u/s 279 and 337 of IPC and R/w S. 187 of IMV Act. The PW1 in his cross-examination has admitted that the two wheeler which belongs him and the accident was taken place in the junction in the middle of the road and as on the date of alleged accident he was proceeding towards right through his motor cycle and there was no signal in the place of accident and he has denied that he caused the accident against the offending vehicle and he has admitted that at 11 SCCH-8 MVC 778/2015 the time of accident he was alone proceeding in a motor cycle and he has denied that the accident was occurred due to his negligence as he has rode the motor cycle unmindfully without observing the traffic rules and regulations and the accident was not taken place on account of rash and negligent riding of the rider of the offending vehicle.
13. The petitioner in support of oral evidence has produced the documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. Ex.P1 is the information filed by the very petitioner in which has stated that on 14.2.2015 at about 10.30 a.m., he was proceeding in a motor cycle bearing No.KA-01-ET- 7947 carefully and cautiously by observing all the traffic rules and regulations from South-North on 1st Main road, N.R.Colony, Bengaluru, when he was reached near Syndicate Bank, the rider of the Yamaha motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-05-HS-200 has rode the same in a rash and negligent manner without observing the 12 SCCH-8 MVC 778/2015 traffic rules and regulations dashed against his motor cycle. Due to the said impact, he was fell down and sustained grievous injuries. So, the publics who were gathered on the spot were took him to Venlakh hospital and took the treatment as inpatient and underwent surgery. So, the accident in question was taken place on account of rash and negligent riding of the rider of the Yamaha motor cycle. So, based on the information the Bhanashankari Police have registered the case against the rider of the motor cycle in their police station Crime No.24/2015 for the offences punishable u/s 279 and 337 of IPC and S. 134(A) & (B) R/w S.187 of IMV Act. The learned counsel for the respondent has cross-examined the PW1, but nothing is elicited to disbelieve his evidence, though he has suggested the PW1 that the accident in question was taken place on account of his negligence and it was not taken place on account rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle rider, for which he has denied the 13 SCCH-8 MVC 778/2015 same. If at all, the accident was occurred on account of rash and negligent riding of the petitioner nothing is prevented to the respondents to examine the rider of the offending vehicle nor the witnesses who are cited in the charge sheet to show that the accident in question was taken place on account of rash and negligent riding of the petitioner. So, in the absence of the materials from the respondents' side, it is clear that the accident was occurred on account of rash and negligent riding of the rider of the offending vehicle, that is the reason why, the respondents did not taken any steps to examine the offending vehicle rider nor the witnesses who are cited in the charge sheet and more over Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are remained unchallenged. Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 are the panchanama and sketch drawn by the I.O. clearly reflects that the offending vehicle rider was came from eastern side towards western side and the petitioner was proceeding from southern to northern side, when the petitioner was almost crossed the 14 SCCH-8 MVC 778/2015 road towards northern side. But the reasons best known to the offending vehicle rider has took the scooter towards petitioner's vehicle and dashed against him. Due to the said impact he was fell down and sustained grievous. So, the accident was occurred on the rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle rider. Thus, Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 supports the case of the petitioner. Ex.P5 and Ex.P9 clearly reflects that the petitioner has sustained injuries in a road traffic accident and got admitted to the Venlakh hospital and took the treatment as inpatient from 14.2.2015 to 16.2.2015 for a period of three days and underwent surgery. Ex.P10 are the medical bills reflects that the petitioner has took the treatment in connection of the injuries sustained by him. So, the documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P13 are coupled with the oral evidence of PW1. The respondents have not led any rebuttal evidence in order to disprove the oral and documentary evidence of the petitioner. On the other hand, the petitioner has proved his 15 SCCH-8 MVC 778/2015 case through oral and documentary evidence that the accident in question was taken place on the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the Yamaha motor cycle. Hence, I answer this issue in the affirmative.
14. Issue No.2:
The PW1 being the injured in his evidence has clearly stated that on 14.2.2015 at about 10.30 a.m. he was proceeding in motor cycle bearing No.KA-01-ET-7947 the rider of the Yamaha motor cycle has rode the same in a rash and negligent manner without observing the traffic rules and regulations dashed against his motor cycle. Due to the said impact, he has sustained the following injuries;
Fracture of both bones of right leg and other injuries
15. So, immediately he was shifted to Venlakh Hospital, wherein he took the treatment as an inpatient from 14.2.2015 to 16.2.2015 for a period of 3 days and he was underwent open reduction and internal fixation and he 16 SCCH-8 MVC 778/2015 was discharged from the hospital with an advice for follow- up treatment. Inspite of best treatment he could not come to normal position, still he is facing difficulties.
16. Prior to the accident he was hale and healthy doing purohit work by getting monthly income of Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/-. Due to the accidental injuries he could not do the work as before, as he suffering from pain in his right leg and mental shock and he has not attending his work till today, unable to sit cross leg and climb stairs, so one more surgery is required for removal of implants. The PW1 in his cross-examination has admitted that the publics who are gathered on the spot were took him to Venlakh hospital and one Dr.Murthy has conducted the surgery and he took the treatment as inpatient and took the bed rest for a period of two months and he was doing Purohit work. But he has denied that still he is doing the same work, due to the accidental injuries he has not sustained any financial loss and he has received the 17 SCCH-8 MVC 778/2015 amount which was spent towards his treatment and has created the medical bills and placed it before the court in order to get the compensation and admitted that he has not produced any documents to show that he was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- to Rs.210,000/- per month from his purohit work.
17. The PW2 being the Orthopaedic Surgeon in his evidence has stated that the petitioner has met with an accident said to have been taken place on 14.2.2015, as he has sustained the following injuries;
Fracture of both bones of right leg
18. So, he was underwent open reduction and internal fixation. Recently, he has examined the petitioner for assessment of disability on 3.3.2016 and found the following difficulties;
(a) Pain in his right knee
(b) Difficulty to squat on floor © Difficulty to sit cross legged 18 SCCH-8 MVC 778/2015
(d) Difficulty to climb upstairs, stand on affected
(e) Difficulty to do routine activities
19. So, the petitioner has sustained permanent physical disability to an extent of 27% of right lower limb and 13% of whole body. The PW2 in his cross-examination has admitted that he has not treated the petitioner personally and the petitioner has underwent surgery in respect of tibia only and fracture is united and the injuries are heal up and he has admitted that they have advised the petitioner to undergo physiotherapy and he has admitted that due to the accidental injuries the petitioner is suffering from joint pain and he has admitted that the petitioner is suffering from disability to an extent of 10% to 11% and he has denied that the petitioner is not facing any difficulties due to the accidental injuries as he is facing difficulties due to the age factor.
20. The PW1 being the injured in his evidence has clearly stated that he has sustained fracture of both the 19 SCCH-8 MVC 778/2015 bones of right leg and underwent open reduction and internal fixation in right tibia and took the treatment as inpatient and outpatient. Inspite of best treatment he could not come to normal position, still he is facing difficulties.
21. The PW2 being the Orthopaedic Surgeon in his evidence has clearly stated about the complaints and disability of the petitioner due to the accidental injuries. So, the evidence of the PW2 corroborate the evidence of the PW1. Ex.P5 is the wound certificate issued by the Venlakh Hospital, Bangalore clearly reflects that the petitioner has sustained the following injuries;
1) Fracture of both bones of (tibia and fibula) of the right
2) Abrasion over both legs
22. So, the above said injuries are grievous in nature. Ex.P9 is the discharge summary clearly reflects that the petitioner soon after the accident has got admitted to the 20 SCCH-8 MVC 778/2015 Venlakh Hospital, wherein he took the treatment as an inpatient from 14.2.20215 to 16.2.2015 for a period of 3 days and he was underwent open reduction and internal fixation in respect of tibia. But Ex.P10 clearly reflects that the petitioner has took the treatment in connection of the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident. Ex.P11 to Ex.P14 are reflects that the petitioner has underwent surgery and implants in situ. So, considering the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road traffic accident and the evidence of PW1 and PW2 as well as duration of treatment, it is just and necessary to grant just compensation to the petitioner in the following heads;
a)Pain and suffering.
The PW1 being the injured in his evidence has clearly stated that he has sustained fracture of both bones of right leg, so he was underwent closed reduction and internal fixation in respect of right tibia. Inspite of best treatment he could not come to normal position, still he is facing 21 SCCH-8 MVC 778/2015 difficulties. PW2 being the Orthopaedic Surgeon in his evidence has clearly stated about the complaints and disability of the petitioner as well as treatment taken by the petitioner as inpatient and outpatient. So considering the evidence of the PW1 and PW2 and the injuries sustained by the petitioner as well as the duration of treatment he would have sustained pain and agony for which, it is just and necessary to award compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the above head, it will meet the ends of justice. Hence, Rs.50,000/- is awarded for the above head.
b) Loss of income during laid up period:
The PW1 being the injured in his evidence has stated that prior to the accident he was hale and healthy and doing purohit work by getting monthly income of Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/-. Due to the accidental injuries he could not do the work as before. But in his cross- examination has admitted that he has not produced any documents to show prior to the accident he was doing 22 SCCH-8 MVC 778/2015 Purohit work by getting monthly income of Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/-. So, in the absence of the materials on record, it is very difficult to believe the income of the petitioner as alleged in the claim petition. So, considering the age and skill of the petitioner and the present life condition, it is just and necessary to consider the monthly notional income of Rs.7,000/- it will meet the ends of justice. Ex.P5 is the wound certificate clearly reflects that the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries. Ex.P9 is the discharge summary clearly reflects that he has sustained the grievous injuries and took the treatment as an inpatient for a period of 3 days and underwent surgery. So, he might have lost the income for a period of three months. So, three months loss of income comes to Rs.21,000/-. So, Rs.21,000/- is granted for the above head.
c) Medical expenses The PW1 being the injured in his evidence has stated that he has sustained the injuries in a road traffic accident 23 SCCH-8 MVC 778/2015 and took the treatment as an inpatient by spending huge amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. But on record the petitioner has produced the medical bills worth of Rs.86,098/-. PW1 in his cross-examination has denied that he has reimbursed the amount which was spent towards his treatment.
Though the learned counsel for the respondent has disputed the medical bills marked as Ex.P10, but nothing is placed on record to show that the medical bills produced by the petitioner are created nor fabricated in order to get the compensation. So, in the absence of the materials on record, it is clear that the medical bills produced by the petitioner are relating to the treatment taken by the petitioner in connection of the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident. Therefore, Rs.86,098/- is granted for the above head.
d) Loss of future earning:
The PW1 being the injured in his evidence has clearly stated that he has sustained fracture of both bones of right 24 SCCH-8 MVC 778/2015 leg. So, he was underwent surgery and implants in situ. Inspite of best treatment he could not come to normal position. The PW2 being the Orthopaedic Surgeon in his evidence has clearly stated about the complaints and disability of the petitioner after the accident. According to him, the petitioner has sustained whole body disability to the extent of 13%. The PW2 in his cross-examination has admitted that the fracture is united but he has denied that the petitioner is the facing difficulties due to the age factor and admitted that fracture of both bones disability is 10% to 11%. So, considering the evidence of the PW1 and PW2, it is just and necessary to consider the disability of 10% of the whole body instead of 13%, it will meet the ends of justice. So, his income is already considered as Rs.7,000/- per month. Ex.P5 and Ex.P9 are reflects that as on the date of alleged accident the petitioner was aged about 59 years. Therefore, his age is taken into consideration as 59 years as on the date of the alleged accident. So, by virtue of the 25 SCCH-8 MVC 778/2015 Sarlaverma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd., in 2009 ACJ 1298 the multiplier applicable is 9. So, the loss of future earning is works out as under;
Rs.7,000X12X9X10/100=Rs.75,600/-.
Hence, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.75,600/- for the above head.
e) Loss of amenities, conveyance, food and nourishment, attendant charges:
The PW1 being the injured in his evidence has clearly stated that he has sustained the injuries in a road traffic accident and took the treatment as an inpatient for a period of 3 days and he has also took the treatment as an outpatient and underwent surgery. The PW2 being the Orthopaedic Surgeon in his evidence has clearly stated about the complaints and disability of the petitioner due to the accidental injuries and surgery which was underwent by the petitioner in connection of the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident and he has also stated about 26 SCCH-8 MVC 778/2015 the treatment taken by the petitioner as inpatient and outpatient. So, considering the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and duration of treatment as well as the complaints and disability of the petitioner after the accident, it is just and necessary to grant Rs.40,000/- for the above head, it will meet the ends of justice. So, Rs.40,000/- is granted for the above head.
f) Future medical expenses:
The PW1 being the injured in his evidence has clearly stated that he has sustained grievous injuries and underwent surgery and implants are in situ. The PW2 being the Orthopaedic Surgeon in his evidence has stated that the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries and underwent surgery and implants in situ. So, one more surgery is required for removal of implants. So considering the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident and the evidence of the PW1 and PW2, it is just and necessary to grant Rs.15,000/- for the above head, it will meet the 27 SCCH-8 MVC 778/2015 ends of justice. So, Rs.15,000/- is granted for the above head.
23. Thus the total award stands as follows:
1.Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000-00
2.Loss of income during laid Rs. 21,000-00 up period
3.Medical bills Rs. 86,098-00
4.Loss of future earning Rs. 75,600-00
5.Loss of amenities, Rs. 40,000-00 conveyance, food and nourishment, attendant charges etc.
6.Future medical expenses Rs. 15,000-00 Total Rs.2,87,698 -00
24. The respondent No.1 being the owner cum rider of the offending vehicle in his written statement has admitted that as on the date of alleged accident he was holding driving license to ride the motor cycle and the vehicle was insured with the respondent No.2 and the policy was valid.
25.The respondent No.2 being the insurer in its written statement has admitted about the issuance of the policy infavour of respondent No.1 in respect of offending 28 SCCH-8 MVC 778/2015 vehicle and the policy was valid from 27.12.2014 to 26.12.2015. The accident in question was occurred on 14.2.2015. So, one thing is clear that as on the date of the alleged accident the policy was in existence.
26. The respondent No.2 has taken up the contention that as on the date of the alleged accident the offending vehicle rider was not holding valid and effective driving licence to ride the same. So, he is not liable to pay the compensation. But the reasons best known to the respondent has not placed any oral and documentary evidence to show that as on the date of alleged accident the offending vehicle rider was not holding valid and effective driving license, even he has not examined the concerned authority either RTO or ARTO to substantiate its defence and moreover Ex.P7 is the final report nowhere discloses that the offending vehicle rider was not holding valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the alleged accident. If at all, the rider of the offending vehicle was not 29 SCCH-8 MVC 778/2015 holding the valid and effective driving licence the I.O., would have charge sheeted against the offending vehicle rider for the offence punishable under Section 181 of MV Act. So, on record there is no material to show that the offending vehicle rider was not holding valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the alleged accident. So one thing is clear that as on the date of the alleged accident the policy was in existence and the offending vehicle rider was holding valid and effective driving licence. So, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. But in view of the valid insurance policy the respondent No.2 alone is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. In the result, the issue No.2 is answered as partly in the affirmative.
30 SCCH-8 MVC 778/2015
27. Issue No.3:
In view of my finding on issue Nos.1 & 2, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner under section 166 of M.V. Act is partly allowed, with costs. The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,87,698/- together with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till its realisation.
The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. In view of the valid insurance policy the respondent No.2 being the insurer shall pay the compensation amount with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till its realisation within a period of 30 days from the date of this order.
On deposit of the compensation amount together with interest, 40% of the amount shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner in any nationalised or scheduled bank of 31 SCCH-8 MVC 778/2015 his choice for a period of three years and the remaining 60% shall be released to him by means of A/c payee cheque on proper identification. The petitioner is at liberty to withdraw the periodical interest accrued on his deposit amount from time to time.
The expenses to be incurred for future medication shall not carry any interest.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-. Draw award accordingly.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcript thereof, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 28th day of April 2016.
(P.J. Somashekar), XII Addl. Judge-Member, MACT, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE List of the witnesses examined on behalf of petitioner:
PW1 Shri Arunachala Dixith G. 8.1.2016
PW2 Dr.Ramesh 16.3.2016
32 SCCH-8 MVC 778/2015
List of the documents exhibited on behalf of petitioner:
Ex.P1 True copy of Complaint Ex.P2 True copy of FIR Ex.P3 True copy of Spot Mahazar Ex.P4 True copy of Spot sketch Ex.P5 True copy of Wound certificate Ex.P6 True copy of IMV report Ex.P7 True copy of charge sheet Ex.P8 Attested copy of driving license Ex.P9 Discharge summary Ex.P10 Medical bills Ex.P11 Prescriptions Ex.P12 X-ray Ex.P13 OPD Ex.P14 X-ray
List of the witnesses examined on behalf of respondents:
None List of the documents marked on behalf of respondents:
Nil (P.J. Somashekar), XII Addl. Judge-Member, MACT, Bangalore.