Bangalore District Court
Mr. C.Amarnath vs Mr.Nandakumar P on 24 January, 2020
BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES, MEMBER PRL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU
(S.C.C.H. - 1)
DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF JANUARY 2020
PRESENT : Smt. S. MAHALAXMI NERALE,B.A., L.L.B.(Hons.), L.L.M.,
MEMBER, PRL. M.A.C.T.
M.V.C. No. 4400/2016 C/w. M.V.C.No.4401/16,
M.V.C.No.4402/16 and M.V.C.No.4403/2016
PETITIONER: 1. Mr. C.Amarnath,
(in MVC S/o. Chidri Vishwanath,
4400/2016) Aged about 57 years.
2. Mrs.Sujatha Chidri,
W/o.C.Amarnath,
Aged about 54 years.
3. Mr.Vaibhav Chidri,
S/o C. Amarnath,
Aged about 27 years.
All are residing at No.2/278,
Kudligi Road, Ramanagar,
Hagaribommanahalli Taluk,
Ballari District583212.
(By Sri .K.N.Harish Babu ,
Advocate)
PETITIONER: 1. Mrs.Shantha Vishwanath C.
SCCH-1 2 MVC No.4400-4403/2016
(in MVC W/o. Chidri Vishwanath,
4401/2016) Aged about 70 years,
Residing at No./20,
Padmalok, M.G.Road,
Ramanagar Extension,
Hagaribommanahalli Taluk,
Ballari District583 212.
(By Sri .K.N.Harish Babu ,
Advocate)
PETITIONER : 1. Mr. Chidri Amarnath,
(in MVC S/o. C. Vishwanath,
4402/2016) Aged about 56 years.
Residing at No.2/278,
Kudligi Road, Ramanagar,
Hagaribommanahalli Taluk,
Ballari District583 212.
(By Sri .K.N.Harish Babu , Advocate)
PETITIONER : 1. Mrs.Sujatha Chindri,
(in MVC W/o. Chindri Amarnath,
4403/2016) Aged about 54 years,
Residing at 2/278
Kudligi Road, Ramanagar,
Hagaribommanahalli Taluk,
Ballari District583 212.
(By Sri .K.N.Harish Babu , Advocate)
V/s
Respondents: 1. Mr.Nandakumar P.
(Common in all S/o. Periyaswamy,
the cases) No.6/100, Kuttimeikkampatti,
SCCH-1 3 MVC No.4400-4403/2016
O.Rajapalayam Post,
Tiruchengode Taluk,
Namakkal District,
Seetharamapalayam,
TN637 209.
(R.C.Owner of the lorry bearing
Reg.No.TN3421179)
... Exparte
2. The Regional Manager,
The New India Assurance
Co.Ltd.,
No.28, Unity Building Annex,
Mission Road, Bangalore.
(I.P.No.72230031150100000851
Valid from 22.05.2015 to
21.05.2016)
(By Sri K.M.Venkatesh Mouni,
Advocate)
*******
COMMON JUDGMENT
These petitions have arisen out of the same
accident and therefore, they are taken up together for
disposal by this common judgment.
2. The petitioners have filed these petitions
invoking the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor
SCCH-1 4 MVC No.4400-4403/2016
Vehicles Act, 1989 seeking compensation for the
injuries sustained by them in the road traffic accident.
3. The brief facts of the case are that:
On 19.10.2015 at about 11.00 a.m., the
petitioners in all the cases were travelling in a car
bearing No.KA35M5263 and they were proceeding
from their house to Bangalore on NH13 and the car
was driven by Chidri Vishnu, the son of C.Amarnath,
the 1st petitioner in M.V.C.No.4400/2016 and when
they came near M.B.Ayyanahalli village, Ballari all of a
sudden the driver of Lorry bearing No.TN34W1179
came in a rash and negligent manner from
Chitradurga side without observing traffic rules and
regulations and dashed against the Motorbike which
was going infront of the lorry and crossed the divider
and came to the other side of the road and dashed
against the car of the petitioner and caused the
accident. Due to heavy impact, the driver of the car
Chidri Vishnu and other inmates of the car sustained
SCCH-1 5 MVC No.4400-4403/2016
grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, the
injured Chidri Vishnu was shifted to General Hospital
Ballari, wherein the doctors declared him brought
dead. It is the case of the petitioners that the deceased
was hale and healthy and was studying C.A. and was
doing Articleship at M/s.Jayaram E.S., Bangalore and
was getting stipend of Rs.15,000/p.m. Due to the
death of the deceased the petitioners are under deep
mental shock, untold harmony. The first petitioner is
the father , the second petitioner is the mother and the
third petitioner is the elder brother of the deceased.
The petitioners have lost the love and affection of the
deceased.
4. The petitioner Shantha Vishwanath in
M.V.C.No.4401/2016 was shifted to Government
Hospital , Kudligi, wherein first aid treatment was
given to her and was shifted to SSIMS Hospital,
Davanagere, wherein necessary treatment was given to
her and for better treatment she was shifted to Sakra
SCCH-1 6 MVC No.4400-4403/2016
World Hospital, Bangalore on 20.10.2015 wherein she
took treatment as an inpatient. She underwent surgery
and wound debridement was done. Prior to the
accident, the petitioner was hale and healthy and she
was a house wife and was earning a sum of
Rs.15,000/ p.m. Due to the injuries sustained by
her in the accident, the petitioner is not able to do
her routine work .
5. The petitioner Chidri Amarnath in
M.V.C.No.4402/2016 was shifted to Government
Hospital , Kudligi, wherein first aid treatment was
given to him and was shifted to SSIMS Hospital,
Davanagere, wherein necessary treatment was given
to him and for better treatment he was shifted to
Sakra World Hospital, Bangalore on 20.10.2015
wherein, he took treatment as an inpatient. Again he
got admitted to Sakra Hospital and then to Fortis
Hospital, Bangalore. Prior to the accident, the
petitioner was hale and healthy and he was doing
SCCH-1 7 MVC No.4400-4403/2016
business, agriculture and he was a industrialist and
social worker. He was President and active member of
many organizations and he was earning a sum of
Rs.15,00,000/ p.a. Due to the injuries sustained by
him, he cannot do any work and has lost his income.
6. The petitioner Sujatha Chidri in M.V.C.
No.4403/2016 was shifted to Government Hospital ,
Kudligi, wherein first aid treatment was given to her
and was shifted to SSIMS Hospital, Davanagere,
wherein necessary treatment was given to her and for
better treatment she was shifted to Sakra World
Hospital, Bangalore wherein she took treatment as an
inpatient and undergone surgery. Again the petitioner
got admitted to hospital on 24.11.2015. Prior to the
accident, the petitioner was hale and healthy and she
was doing business at Balaji Weigh Bridge, Hagari
Bommanahali, and was earning a sum of
Rs.2,50,000/ p.a. Due to the injuries sustained by
her, she cannot do any work and has lost her income.
SCCH-1 8 MVC No.4400-4403/2016
7. In response to the Court notices issued on
these claim petitions, the respondent No.1 owner of the
offending lorry has not chosen to appear before the
Court and hence, he has been placed exparte.
8. The respondent No.2 Insurance Company has
appeared before the Court through its Counsel and
has filed written statement denying the petition
averments. It is contended that the petition is not
maintainable for nonjoinder of necessary parties such
as, the insured and insurer of car bearing No. KA35
M5263. Further, it has denied the very occurrence of
the accident and involvement of the lorry bearing No.
TN34W1179 . It has denied the date, time , mode of
accident, injuries sustained by the petitioners, amount
spent for treatment, avocation and income of the
petitioners and the deceased. It is contended that the
compensation claimed is excessive and exorbitant and
that in the event of the owner failing to contest the
case, then it may be permitted to defend the case on
SCCH-1 9 MVC No.4400-4403/2016
all grounds including negligence as per Section 170 of
M.V.Act. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition.
9. Based on the pleadings, the learned
Predecessor in Office has framed the following Issues
in all the cases:
Issues in M.V.C.No.4400/2016
1. Whether the Petitioners prove that the
deceased succumbed to injuries in a Motor
Vehicle Accident that occurred on
19.10.2015 at about 11.00 a.m, on NH13
Road, Near M.B. Ayyanahalli Village,
Bellary, within the jurisdiction of Hosahalli
police station on account of rash and
negligent driving of the lorry bearing
registration No.TN34W1179 by its driver?
2. Whether the Petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so, how much and from
whom?
3. What order?
Issues in M.V.C.No.4401/2016 to 4403/2016
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that she
sustained grievous injuries in a Motor
Vehicle Accident that occurred on
19.10.2015 at about 11.00 a.m, on NH13
Road, Near M.B. Ayyanahalli Village,
Bellary, within the jurisdiction of Hosahalli
police station on account of rash and
SCCH-1 10 MVC No.4400-4403/2016
negligent driving of the lorry bearing
registration No.TN34W1179 by its driver?
2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, how much and from
whom?
3. What order?
10. In order to prove their case, the petitioner in
M.V.C.No.4401/2016 has examined herself as PW1
and the Doctor has been examined as PW2, The 2 nd
petitioner in M.V.C.No.4400/16 who is also the injured
petitioner in M.V.C.No.4403/16 has been examined as
PW3 and the petitioners in all have got marked the
documents at Ex.P.1 to 61. The respondent No.2 has
examined the Income Tax Officer as RW1 and has got
marked the documents at Ex.R.1 to R.4.
11. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsels
for the petitioners and the respondent No.2, also
perused the written arguments filed by learned counsel
SCCH-1 11 MVC No.4400-4403/2016
for the respondent No.2 and the decisions relied upon
by him and the records.
12. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2
has placed reliance upon the following decisions:
(i) 20011 ACC673 (United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
Vs D.C. Rajanna and Another) wherein the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka has held that there must be evidence to show that as
a result of injury, income of the victim was reduced in order to
grant compensation under the head "loss of future earnings".
(ii) 2010 ILR 2439 (Subhash and Another Vs. New India
Insurance Company Ltd.,) wherein the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka has held that if the claimant is continued in service,
then, the question of awarding compensation towards loss of
future income does not arise.
(iii) 20114 KLJ 104 (United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
Vs. Smt. Rooopa Saharan) wherein the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka has taken contributory negligence of the injured
claimant and the driver of the offending vehicle at 50% each for
the accident.
(iv) 2016 ACJ 1599 (Manager, United India Insurance
Company Ltd., Vs. Anand Swaroop Medhavi & Another) wherein
the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad has held that as the
claimant continued in the same job and drawing the same
salary, he was not entitled to loss of future earnings.
(v) 2017 JT 10450 SC (National Insurance Company Ltd.,
Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others)
(iv) United India Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Smt.
Kavitha & Others (MFA.No.556/2016 DD.15/2/2018) wherein
the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has followed the principle
laid down in Pranay Sethi's case.
13. On the basis of the arguments, the
pleadings and the evidence available on record, my
findings on the above Issues are as under:
SCCH-1 12 MVC No.4400-4403/2016
Issue No.1( in all the cases )... In the Affirmative,
Issue No.2 ( in all the cases) ...Partly in the Affirmative,
Issue No.4( in all the cases )...As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
14. Issue No.1 (in all the cases): The case of the
petitioners in all the cases is that the accident has
occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving
of the driver of the Lorry bearing No. TN34W1179 .
15. On the other hand, it is the contention of the
respondent No.2 that the lorry bearing No. TN34W
1179 was not involved in the accident. .
16. In order to prove their case, the petitioner
Shantha Vishwanath C. in M.V.C.No.4401/16 has
examined herself as PW1 and petitioner Sujatha
Chidri in MV.C.No.4403/2016 has examined herself as
PW3 for herself and on behalf of the petitioner in
M.V.C.No.4402/16 as natural guardian and as the 2 nd
petitioner in M.V.C.No.4400/16. PW1 and PW3 have
filed their respective affidavit evidence in lieu of their
examinationinchief, reiterating the averments of the
SCCH-1 13 MVC No.4400-4403/2016
petition. Apart from the oral evidence, the petitioners
through PW1 have got produced the documentary
evidence namely, the copy of FIR, Spot Mahazar, Spot
sketch, IMV Report and Charge Sheet at Ex.P.1 to 4
and P.6.
17. On perusal of Ex.P.1, FIR and Complaint, it is
seen that the accident has occurred on 19.10.2015 at
about 11.00 a.m. and the complaint has been lodged
by one Ramesh, one of the relative of the petitioners. In
the said complaint, he has stated that he received a
telephone call from Chidri Amaranath stating that they
have met with an accident near Aiyanahalli. The
driver of the lorry which was coming from Chitradurga
side came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed
against their car and his son Chidri Amarnath who
sustained grievous injuries, succumbed to the injuries
on the spot and his wife and mother have also
sustained grievous injuries and the car is also fully
damaged. On the basis of the said complaint, the
SCCH-1 14 MVC No.4400-4403/2016
police have registered the criminal case against the
lorry driver. During the course of investigation, the
police have prepared the Spot Sketch as per Ex.P.3. It
discloses that the car bearing No.KA35M5263 in
which the petitioners were travelling was going from
Hagari Bommanahalli to Bangalore and near
Aiyanahalli, the Lorry bearing No. TN34W1179 has
come from Chitradurga side. The said lorry has gone to
the opposite side of the road and has dashed against
the car bearing No. KA35M5263 which was coming
from opposite direction i.e., from the side of Hagari
Bommanahalli towards Bangalore. If the driver of the
lorry had taken precaution, he could have avoided the
accident as after hitting the two wheeler proceeding
infront of him has gone to the other side of the road
and has dashed against the car. After completion of
investigation, the Police have filed charge sheet as per
Ex.P.6 against the driver of the Lorry bearing No. TN
34W1179 for the offences punishable under Sections
SCCH-1 15 MVC No.4400-4403/2016
279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of IPC. The IMV Report
discloses that the car bearing No. KA35M5263 had
sustained following damage:
Front shape , head lamp, bumper, bonnet,
radiator, wind screen, full top, body scratch, front
wheel assembly fully damaged.
The Lorry bearing No. TN34W1179 had
sustained the following damage:
Front both wind scree right and left sides shape ,
head lamp, bumper body damaged. Front Mirror
assembly damaged.
The IMV Inspector has opined that the accident is
not caused due to any mechanical defects of both the
vehicles.
18. It is relevant to note that the respondent No.2
though denied the occurrence of the accident and
involvement of the lorry in the accident has not
examined the driver of the Lorry before the Court to
prove that the accident has not occurred in the
manner stated by the petitioners and that it has
occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of
SCCH-1 16 MVC No.4400-4403/2016
the car. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the
contra, this Court has to accept the evidence of the
petitioners. Therefore, from the evidence of PW1 and 3
coupled with the documentary evidence, it can be
safely held that the accident has occurred due to the
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry
bearing No. TN34W1179 and as a result of the same
the petitioners have sustained grievous injuries and
Chidri Vishnu succumbed to the injuries. Hence, Issue
No.1 in all the cases, is answered in the affirmative.
19. Issue No.3 in M.V.C. No.4400/2016 : It is
the case of the petitioners that they have lost their son
Chidri Vishnu in the R.T.A. and they are suffering from
untold pain and mental agony for the sudden death of
their son who was hale and healthy. The petitioners
have become helpless and destitute for the loss of life
of the deceased who was the only earning member of
the family. It is contended that the 1st and 2nd
petitioners are the parents of the deceased and the
SCCH-1 17 MVC No.4400-4403/2016
petitioner No.3 is the elder brother of the deceased. In
order to prove their case, the petitioner No.1 who has
examined herself as PW3 has filed her affidavit
evidence in lieu of her examination in chief reiterating
the petition averments. Ex.P.48 notarized copy of
Ration Card produced by PW3 discloses that the 1 st
petitioner Chidri Amaranath, the 2nd petitioner (PW3)
Sujatha Chidri, the 3rd petitioner Vaibhav Chidri are
respectively, the father, mother and elder brother of
the deceased Chidri Vishnu. The notarized copies of
Aadhar Card, Mark Cards, PAN Card, Election Identity
Card, Driving Licence and Passport of the deceased at
Ex.P.43 to P.47 shows that the 1st petitioner is the
father of the deceased. Hence, the relationship
between the deceased Vishnu Chidri and the
petitioners is proved.
20. Now coming to the point whether petitioners
are dependents of the deceased, it is seen that the
petitioner No.1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased
SCCH-1 18 MVC No.4400-4403/2016
and the 3rd petitioner is the elder brother of the
deceased. Now after the accident, the petitioner No.1 is
completely bed ridden and the petitioner No.2 has to
look after her husband. Hence, they are considered as
dependants of the deceased. The Petitioner No.3 is
aged 27 years and is the elder brother of the deceased.
Hence he is not considered as a dependant.
21. It is the contention of the petitioners that at
the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 22
years and he was studying C.A. and was doing
Articleship at M/s. Jayram C.S., Bangalore and was
getting a monthly stipend of Rs.15,000/p.m. The
petitioners have produced Notarized copy of S.S.L.C.
Marks Card, PUC Marks Card, Degree Marks Card,
C.A. Marks Card at Ex.P.39 to P.42. The CA Marks
Card at Ex.P.42 shows that the deceased was
prosecuting his studies in Chartered Accountancy. But
with regard to he doing Articleship in M/S. Jayaram
C.S. and getting stipend of Rs.15,000/ there is no
SCCH-1 19 MVC No.4400-4403/2016
documentary proof. In the crossexamination, PW3
has admitted that her son was getting the stipend as
fixed by the Institute of Chartered Accounts of India
but she has stated that she does not know about the
stipend of Rs.4,000/ fixed by the said Institute. As per
the Chartered Accountancy Regulations, a person
registered as an 'Article' is entitled to receive a
minimum monthly stipend. In the absence of
documentary proof, the stipend of the deceased is
taken as Rs.4,000/ per month. Added the petitioner
was doing B.Com degree. Hence, having regard to the
education qualification of the deceased, the income of
the deceased is notionally assessed as Rs.10,000/
p.m.
22. In so far as addition of income towards loss of
future prospects, in National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in 2017
ACJ 2700 (SC) and cited by the learned counsel for the
respondent No.2, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that
SCCH-1 20 MVC No.4400-4403/2016
" In the case, the deceased was selfemployed or on a
fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established
income should be the warrant where the deceased was
below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where
the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years
and 10% where the deceased was between the age of
50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary
method of computation. The established income means
the income minus the tax component". In Hemraj Vs.
Oriental Insurance Co. & others reported in (2018)
ACJ(5), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that future
prospects is admissible where minimum income is
determined on guess work in the absence of proof of
income.
23. The Petitioners have produced notarized copy
of S.S.L.C. Marks card of the deceased, which
discloses his date of birth as 09.11.1993. Therefore,
the deceased was aged 22 years as on the date of
accident. Therefore, 40% of his income has to be taken
SCCH-1 21 MVC No.4400-4403/2016
as loss of future prospects and 40% of Rs.10,000/ is
Rs.4,000/. If the same is added to his notional income
of Rs.10,000/, the same works out Rs.14,000/ p.m..
24. The deceased was bachelor at the time of
accident. Therefore, 50% of his income i.e., Rs.7,000/
p.m out of Rs.14,000/ p.m. has to be deducted
towards his personal expenses. After deducting the
same, the annual income works out to Rs.84,000/
(7,000x12). The petitioner was aged 22 years and the
proper multiplier applicable is 18. If we multiply the
annual income of the deceased by the multiplier , the
same works out to Rs.15,12,000/ (84,000x18), to
which the 1st and 2nd petitioner are entitled to under
the head loss of dependency on account of the death of
their son in the accident. Hence, I award a sum of
Rs.15,12,000/ towards loss of dependency.
25. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's
case referred supra has held that reasonable figures on
conventional heads, namely loss of estate and funeral
SCCH-1 22 MVC No.4400-4403/2016
expenses should be Rs.15,000/ each. Hence, in the
case on hand also, I award Rs.15,000/ towards loss
of estate and Rs.15,000/ towards funeral expenses.
26. In the case of Magma General Inurance Co.,
Ltd., Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and Ors., in
Civil Appeal No.9581 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Civil)
No.3192 of 2018) (18.09.2018), the Hon'ble Apex Court
has held that "Parental Consortium" is awarded to
children who lose their parents and filial consortium is
awarded to parents who lose their child and that the
amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium
will be governed by the principles of awarding
compensation under "loss of consortium" as laid down
in Pranay Sethi's case. Therefore, I award Rs.80,000/
to the petitioners 1 and 2 under the head Loss of
Parental Consortium and Rs.40,000/ under the head
loss of love and affection to the petitioner No.3. The
details of compensation to which the petitioners are
entitled is as under:
SCCH-1 23 MVC No.4400-4403/2016
Sl.No Head of Compensation Amount/Rs
1 Loss of dependency 15,12,00000
2 Loss of estate 15,00000
3 Funeral expenses 15,00000
4 Loss of filial consortium 80,00000
5 Loss of love and affection to 40,00000
Petitioner No.3
Total 16,62,00000
The petitioners in M.V.C.No.4400/16 are thus
entitled for compensation of Rs.16,62,000/.
27. Issue No.3 in M.V.C. No.4401/2016 : The
petitioner Shantha Vishwanath C. has contended that
in the accident, she has sustained grievous injuries.
In order to prove the same, she has produced the
Wound Certificate at Ex.P.5 issued by Chief Medical
Officer, Government Hospital, Kudligi Taluk, Ballary
District and it discloses that the petitioner has
sustained the following injuries:
1. Injury to skull, open wound around 6cmx2cm
2. Lacerated wound on Face below the lower lip
3. Fracture of scalp
SCCH-1 24 MVC No.4400-4403/2016
The Doctor has opined that the injuries No.1 and
2 are simple in nature and injury No.3 is grievous in
nature. The petitioner has also produced the
Discharge Summary of SSIMS Hospital at Ex.P.7 and
it discloses that the petitioner has been diagnosed with
closed head injury with cervical spine injury , C1
fracture and the petitioner has taken treatment for one
day and later has been shifted to Sakra Hospital,
wherein as per Ex.P.8 Discharge Summary of the said
hospital, she has taken treatment as an inpatient from
20.10.2015 to 06.11.2015. i.e, for a period of 18 days.
Thus, in all the petitioner has taken inpatient
treatment for 19 days. The Discharge Summary of
Sakra Hospital at Ex.P.8 discloses that the petitioner
was diagnosed with traumatic brain injury with
Jefferson's fracture with scalp laceration and the
C.T.Brain showed tentorial bleed with inter
hemispheric bleed. The Discharge Summary discloses
that the petitioner has undergone wound debridement
SCCH-1 25 MVC No.4400-4403/2016
and suturing of scalp laceration. In view of the
injuries sustained by the petitioner and duration of
treatment taken by her, I award a sum of Rs.30,000/
towards Pain and sufferings.
28. It is the case of the petitioner that, at the time
of accident, she was aged 70 years and she was a
house wife. During the inpatient period she was
attended by an attendant by name Anitha and the
petitioner used to pay Rs.20,000/p.m. to her as
attendant charges. In support of her case, the
petitioner has produced the receipts at Ex.P.12 for an
amount of Rs.1,20,000/ at the rate of Rs.20,000/
p.m. In her crossexamination by the learned counsel
for the respondent No.2, PW1 has stated that
Smt.Anitha is a nurse from Bangalore and her services
was availed from the Sangha and she does not
remember the name of the said Sangha. On perusal of
the receipts at Ex.P.12, it is seen that the said receipt
has not been issued by any Sangha. They do not bear
SCCH-1 26 MVC No.4400-4403/2016
any seal of the Sangha also. If the services were availed
from the Sangha, the receipts should have been in the
name of the Sangha. It is quite probable that when all
the family members meet with an accident, an
attendant would have looked after them. But the claim
of the petitioner that the attendant was being paid
Rs.20,000/ per month towards attendant charges, in
all Rs.1,20,000/ is on a very higher side. The
petitioner has also produced 2 Ambulance bills at
Ex.P.11 for Rs.23,000/ and it discloses that from
H.B.Halli to Davanagere and from Davanagere to
Bangalore, Rs.12,500/ and from Bangalore to
H.B.Halli Rs.10,500/ has been paid. Therefore, as the
petitioner was inpatient in the hospital for a period of
19 days and thereafter on bed rest for some time, and
during that period, the petitioner might have spent
some amount towards conveyance, food and
nourishment, attendant charges, I award a sum of
Rs.40,000/ as compensation under the head of
SCCH-1 27 MVC No.4400-4403/2016
conveyance, food and nourishment, attendant
charges and other incidental charges.
29. The petitioner's further case is that she has
incurred huge Medical expenses for her treatment. The
petitioner has produced 22 medical bills to the tune of
Rs.3,44,690/ at Ex.P.10 and Prescriptions at Ex.P.13.
On verification of the medical bills, inpatient bill is to
the tune of Rs.2,96,484/. Two advance receipts for an
amount of Rs.5,000/ each have been produced but
the same is not taken into account. The other bills are
for the purchase of medicines and consultation.
Hence, I have accepted the medical bills to the tune of
Rs.3,34,687/ (excluding advance receipts) and the
same is rounded off to Rs.3,35,000/ . Hence, I award
Rs.3,35,000/ towards medical expenses.
30. At the old age of 70 years, the petitioner has
suffered closed head injury with cervical spine injury ,
C1 fracture . She has to lead rest of her life with this
discomfort. Hence, for the injuries sustained by the
SCCH-1 28 MVC No.4400-4403/2016
petitioner , I award Rs.25,000/ under the head of
loss of amenities.
31. The details of compensation, to which the
petitioner is entitled to is as under:
Sl. Head of Compensation Amount
No.
1. Pain and Sufferings Rs. 30,00000
2. Medical expenses Rs. 3,35,00000
3. Food and nourishment, Rs. 40,00000
conveyance , attendant
charges and other incidental
expenses
4. Loss of amenities Rs. 25,00000
Total Rs. 4,30,00000
The petitioner in M.V.C.No.4401/2016 is entitled
for a sum of Rs.4,30,000/.
32. Issue No.2 :(in M.V.C.No.4402/2016) : it is
the case of the petitioner Chidri Amarnath that in the
accident, he has sustained grievous injuries. The order
sheet reveals that the wife of the petitioner had filed an
SCCH-1 29 MVC No.4400-4403/2016
application under Order XXXII Rule 4 read with
Section 151 of C.P.C. seeking permission to give
evidence on behalf of the petitioner since the petitioner
was stated to be not physically fit to give evidence and
in view of the said application being allowed, the wife
of the petitioner by name, Smt. Sujatha Chidri has
given evidence on behalf of the petitioner.
33. In order to prove that the petitioner had
sustained grievous injuries, PW3 has produced
Wound Certificate of Government Hospital, Kudligi at
Ex.P.25. It discloses that the petitioner had sustained
1) lacerated lip, 2) multiple abrasion on face, 3) frontal
contusion with brain stem contusion 4) fracture of
head of humerus and 5) fracture of clavicle. The
Doctor has opined that the injuries No.1 and 2 are
simple in nature and injuries No.3,4 and 5 are
grievous in nature. Ex.P.49 is the discharge summary
of Sakra World Hospital which discloses that the
petitioner has taken treatment as an inpatient from
SCCH-1 30 MVC No.4400-4403/2016
20.10.2015 to 05.02.2016 i.e. for a period of 109 days
and diagnosed with frontal contusion with acute SDH
with brain stem contusion S/P left fronto parietal
craniotomy and evacuation of contusion on
20/10/2015. Again he has been got admitted to the
same hospital from 21.03.2016 to 23.03.2016, for a
period of 3 days and diagnosed with communicating
hydrcephalu with post VP Stunt in situ. Again the
petitioner has been admitted as inpatient in the same
hospital from 04.05.2016 to 07.05.2016 for a period of
4 days for stunt malfunction. PW3 has produced
Ex.P.26, Discharge Summary of Fortis Hospital, which
discloses that the petitioner has taken treatment as an
inpatient from 21.05.2016 to 29.06.2016 i.e., for a
period of 40 days for VP Shunt Malfunction in Post
traumatic hydrocephalus and during the course in the
hospital, the petitioner has undergone exteriorisation
of abdominal end of VP Stunt under GA on
23/5/2016, VP Stunt removal under GA on
SCCH-1 31 MVC No.4400-4403/2016
27/5/2016 and 2 other surgeries as mentioned in
Ex.P.26. Ex.P.27 is the Discharge Summary of S.D.M.
Ayurvedic Hospital, Udupi which shows that the
petitioner has taken treatment as an inpatient from
12.06.2017 to 20.06.2017 i.e., for a period of 9 days
for reduced strength in both halves of body since 5
months. Ex.P.28 is another Discharge Summary of
S.D.M. Ayurvedic Hospital, Udupi for the treatment
taken as an inpatient from 05.03.2017 to 13.03.2017
i.e., for a period of 9 days and Ex.P.29 is another
Discharge Summary of S.D.M. Ayurvedic Hospital,
Udupi, wherein the petitioner has taken treatment as
an inpatient from 23.01.2017 to 31.01.2017 i..e, for a
period of 9 days. In all petitioner, the petitioner has
taken treatment as an inpatient for a period of 223
days (156 days in Sakra World Hospital, 40 days in
Fortis Hospital and 27 days Ayurvedic treatment in
SDM Ayurvedic Hospital). In view of the grievous
injuries sustained by the petitioner and duration of
SCCH-1 32 MVC No.4400-4403/2016
treatment taken by him, I award a sum of
Rs.2,00,000/ towards Pain and sufferings.
34. PW3 has contended that due to the
accidental injuries, the petitioner has suffered
permanent disability. In order to substantiate the
same she has examined Dr.Nagaraj B.N., Orthopaedic
Surgeon and Medico Legal Consultant at Fortis
Hospital as PW2. In his affidavit evidence filed in lieu
of his examinationinchief, the Doctor has stated that
the petitioner had sustained head injury and had
undergone craniotomy and evacuation hematoma on
20/10/2015 at SS Hospital, Davanagere. Later, he
developed seizures and the petitioner was taken to
Sakra hospital, Bengaluru, wherein he underwent TP
shunt to VP shunt conversion. He was treated with
exteriorization of abdominal end of V.P. shunt on
23/5/2016 and VP shunt removal on 27/5/2016 and
once the petitioner was stable, he was discharged from
the hospital on 29/6/2016. He has stated that the
SCCH-1 33 MVC No.4400-4403/2016
petitioner was reviewed on 22/5/2017 for assessment
of disability. The petitioner complained of behavioral
changes, forgetfullness, difficulty in recognizing people
and needed assistance for activities of daily life. He has
stated that the petitioner was subjected to
neurobehavioral and cognitive assessment and with
consultation of neurosurgeon, assessment of disability
was done as per Central Government Notification. He
has stated that cognitive disability is 20% and neuro
behavioral disability is 28% and the total Neuro
Behavioral and Cognitive disability is 41.7% and
produced the Disability Certificate at Ex.P.16, Neuro
Behavioral assessment sheet at Ex.P.17 and 2 case
sheets at Ex.P.18 and P.19.
35. On perusal of Ex.P.16, the disability
Certificate, it is issued by Dr. Satish S. Consultant
Neurosurgeon, Fortis Hospital and it is stated that
Amarnath Chidri who was diagnosed to have VP Shunt
malfunction in post trauma, Hyydrocephalus,
SCCH-1 34 MVC No.4400-4403/2016
underwent Exteriorisation of abdominal end of VP
Shunt and VP Shunt removal, on Neurological and
Neuro behavioral assessment he has: (1) Combined
Neuro Behavioral and Cognitive disability 42% with
intellectual disability very severe (75%), (2) Speech
disability 75%, (3) Motor system disability hemi paresis
50%, (4) Bladder incontinence 75%, (5) Post H.I.
Epilepsy moderate 50%. If it stated that the said
assessment has been done as per the Manual of
Doctors to evaluate Permanent Physical Impairment
based on DGHSWHOAIMS, New Delhi 1981.
36. Ex.P.17 is the Neuro Behavioral and Cognitive
assessment report. The clinical data sheet in Ex.P.17
reveals that the petitioner Amarnath Chidri has been
referred to New Pro, a unit of PRS Neuro Sciences and
Mechatranocis Research India Pvt.,Ltd., Bengaluru by
Dr. Satish, Consultant, Neuro Surgeon, for
Neuropsychological assessment and the Neuro
Behavioral and Cognitive assessment test had been
SCCH-1 35 MVC No.4400-4403/2016
conducted on 22/5/2017 by Dr. Prathiba Sharan. It is
stated that the petitioner is able to recognize his wife
and son on and off. He is not spontaneous at all. Likes
to keep to himself most of the times. He forgets names,
conversations, finds it difficult to recognize people.
Gets head ache and giddiness on exposure to sunlight
and on watching TV. Feels tired all the time. Finds it
difficult to understand conversations, needs
repetitions. Needs help for almost all the activities of
daily living. After assessment of cognitive ability of the
petitioner, the petitioner is found to have cognitive
disability of 20% and after assessment of neuro
behavioral ability, he is found to have 28%
neurobehavioral disability and by using the combined
formula/DGHS telescopic sum formula of a+b (90
a)/90, the combined neurological and cognitive
disabilities of the petitioner is assessed at 41.77%.
37. From the material on record, it is evident that
the petitioner has sustained head injury. He has
SCCH-1 36 MVC No.4400-4403/2016
41.77% neurological and cognitive disability. Hence,
his permanent disability is taken as 42%.
38. PW3 has claimed that the petitioner at the
time of accident was aged 56 years and he was an
Industrialist, Agriculturist, Businessman and a Social
Worker and was earning Rs.15,00,000/p.a. In order to
prove the same, PW3 has produced Trust Deed at
Ex.P.30 which shows that the petitioner Chidri
Amaranath is one of the Trustee. Ex.P.31 is the
invitation of Free Eye Camp wherein the function has
been presided over by the petitioner. PW3 has also
produced Income Tax Returns for the year ending
201415 and 201516 at Ex.P.32 and 33 which have
been filed within time. Ex.P.32 the Income Tax Returns
for the AY 201415 discloses the gross total income of
the petitioner was Rs.14,91,345/ (Taxable Income of
Rs.13,92,060/) and an amount of Rs.3,20,580/ has
been paid as Tax. Along with the IT Returns, Capital
Account Statement and Assets and Liabilities
SCCH-1 37 MVC No.4400-4403/2016
Statement attested by the Auditor who has audited
the income of the petitioner has been produced. The
same discloses that the statement of income for the
AY 201415 includes rent receipts of the property
(2/278, Kudligi Road, H.B. Halli) Business (as a
partner of M/S. Chidri Traders, H.B. Halli), interest on
Sundry Debtors and agriculture income. Ex.P.33, the
Income Tax Returns for the AY 201516 discloses the
gross total income was Rs.9,54,137/ (total taxable
income Rs.8,03,970/) and payment of tax of
Rs.1,13,342/. The Capital Account Statement and
Assets and Liabilities Statement produced shows that
the same includes rent receipts of the property
Business, interest on Sundry Debtors and agriculture
income.
39. On the other hand, the respondent No.2 has
examined the Inspector of Income Tax, Hospete as RW
1. In his evidence before the Court, he has stated that
Ex.P.32 and 33 belongs to the petitioner. He has stated
SCCH-1 38 MVC No.4400-4403/2016
that the taxable income for the year 201415 was
Rs.13,92,060/ as per Ex.P.32 and the taxable income
for the year 201516 is Rs.8,03,917/ as per Ex.P.33.
He has produced the IT returns of the petitioner for the
assessment year 201617 at Ex.R.4 and has stated
that the taxable income of the petitioner for the said
year is Rs.12,03,690/ and has further stated that the
taxable income has increased in the year 201617.
40. From the evidence adduced by the petitioner
and the respondent No.2, it is evident that though the
petitioner has suffered 41.77% neurological and
cognitive disability, due to accidental injuries, the
income has not become extinct or dissipated as can be
found from Ex.R4. But the services and expertise of
the petitioner definitely has been lost, as when, the
gross income that the petitioner has got prior to the
date of accident is compared with the gross total
income that the petitioner has got after the accident, it
has reduced (on comparison of Ex.P.32 and Ex.P.33 on
SCCH-1 39 MVC No.4400-4403/2016
the one hand and Ex.R.4 on the other). Hence, by
looking to the income of the petitioner as on the date of
the accident, his income is notionally taken as
Rs.50,000/ per month.
41. PW3 has contented that her husband i.e., the
petitioner Chidri Amarnath was 56 years at the time of
accident. In order to prove the same, she has
produced the notarized copy of ration card which
discloses the age of the petitioner as 52 years as on
2012. The IT returns at Ex.R.4 reveals the date of birth
of the petitioner as 27/9/1959. Hence, the petitioner
was aged 57 years as on the date of the accident. The
appropriate multiplier applicable to the age group of
5660 years is 9. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled
for compensation under the head of loss of future
earning due to permanent disability at :
Rs.50,0000x12x9x42%/100 = Rs.22,68,000/ . Hence,
I award Rs.22,68,000/ towards future loss of
earning due to permanent disability.
SCCH-1 40 MVC No.4400-4403/2016
42. Regarding the loss of income during the
period of treatment is concerned, the petitioner was
inpatient for a period of 223 and still he is not in a
position to do his business. As could be seen from the
Discharge Summary and IP Record and due to the
grievous injuries sustained by the petitioner and on
account of the surgery, the petitioner might have taken
20 months bed rest and during that period, the
petitioner has suffered loss of income. Hence, I award
Rs.10,00,000/ towards loss of income during the
treatment period .
43. PW3 has contended that huge expenses
towards the treatment of the petitioner has been
incurred. PW3 has produced 196 medical bills to the
tune of Rs.34,04,046/ at Ex.P.35. On verification of
the medical bills, PW3 has produced nursing bills to
the tune of Rs.3,74,000/ and ambulance bills to the
tune of Rs.33,000/. Hence, they are not taken into
consideration under the head medical expenses. On
SCCH-1 41 MVC No.4400-4403/2016
deduction of the said amount, the balance comes to
Rs.32,71,335/ and I have accepted the medical bills
to the tune of Rs.32,71,335/ and the same is rounded
off to Rs.32,71,500/ . Hence, I award Rs.32,71,500/
towards medical expenses.
44. The petitioner was inpatient in the hospital
for a period of 223 days. PW3 in her evidence has
stated that they shifted the petitioner from Sakra
World Hospital to Fortis Hospital and other hospitals
in an ambulance and PW3 has produced Ambulance
bills to the tune of Rs.33,000/. She has further stated
that as the petitioner was completely bed ridden, a
male nurse was appointed to look after him by paying
Rs.25,000/, Rs.20,000/ Rs.15,000/ etc. In this
regard, PW3 has produced bills to the tune of
Rs.3,74,000/. But PW3 has not examined the male
attendant before the Court. Therefore, taking into
account that during the period of inpatient period,
some amount towards conveyance, attendant, food and
SCCH-1 42 MVC No.4400-4403/2016
nourishment and other incidental charges will have
been incurred, I award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ as
compensation towards conveyance, food and
nourishment, attendant charges and other
incidental charges.
45. At the age of 57 years, the petitioner having
suffered severe head injury and has 42% Neurological
Cognitive disability and he has to lead rest of his life
with this disability . Hence, I award Rs.1,00,000/
under the head of loss of amenities.
46. The details of compensation, to which the
petitioner is entitled to is as under:
Sl. Head of Compensation Amount
No.
1. Pain and Sufferings Rs. 2,00,00000
2. Medical expenses Rs. 32,71,50000
3. Loss of income during the Rs. 10,00,00000
period of inpatient and period
of treatment.
SCCH-1 43 MVC No.4400-4403/2016
4. Food and nourishment, Rs. 1,00,00000
conveyance , attendant
charges and other incidental
expenses
5. Future loss of earning due to Rs. 22,68,00000
disability
6. Loss of amenities Rs. 1,00,00000
Total Rs. 69,39,50000
Rounded off to Rs. 69,40,00000
The petitioner in M.V.C.No.4402/2016 is entitled
for a sum of Rs.69,40,000/.
47. Issue No.3 in M.V.C. No.4403/2016 : The
petitioner Sujatha Chidri has contended that in the
accident, she has sustained grievous injuries. In order
to prove the same, she has produced the Wound
Certificate at Ex.P.20 of Kudligi Government Hospital
and it discloses that the petitioner has sustained the
following injuries:
1. Fracture of right maxillary sinus, left ramus of
mandible, left petrous temporal bone
2. Left facial nerve paralysis
3. Grade 2 liver injury with mild Hemo peritorium
4. Right hip dislocation
5.Fracture of right fibula
SCCH-1 44 MVC No.4400-4403/2016
6. Bilateral minimal hemothorax basal atelectasis
7. Deep vein thrombasis of left leg
8. Lacerated wound on left lip
9. Multiple abrasions seen on face.
The Doctor has opined that the injuries No.8 and
9 are simple in nature and injury No.1 to 7 are
grievous in nature. The petitioner has also produced
the Discharge Summary of Sakra World Hospital at
Ex.P.21 and it discloses that the petitioner has taken
treatment as an inpatient from 24.11.2015 to
27.11.2015 i.e., for a period of 4 days and another
Discharge Summary discloses that the petitioner took
treatment as an inpatient from 22.10.2015 to
27.10.2015 i.e., for a period of 6 days. In all, the
petitioner has taken inpatient treatment for a period of
10 days. During the course of treatment she has
undergone closed reduction of right hip , above knee
slab left leg and Thomas splint of left leg. In view of
the injuries sustained by the petitioner and duration of
SCCH-1 45 MVC No.4400-4403/2016
treatment taken by her, I award a sum of Rs.50,000/
towards Pain and sufferings.
48. The petitioner has contended that due to the
accidental injuries she has suffered permanent
disability. Though Dr. Ananda Reddy has been
examined as PW4 by the petitioner and got produced
Ex.P.61 through him, the said doctor in his affidavit
evidence filed in lieu of his examination inchief has
not at all stated anything regarding the disability of the
petitioner. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence to
show that the petitioner has suffered any permanent
disability, she is not entitled for future loss of income
due to permanent disability.
49. It is the case of the petitioner that at the time
of accident she was aged 53 years and she was self
employed. She was running Balaji Weigh Bridge and
earning a sum of Rs.25,000/p.m. and due to the
accidental injuries she has lost her income. In order
to prove her contention, though she has produced
SCCH-1 46 MVC No.4400-4403/2016
Ex.P.53 Certificate of Verification issued by the
Asst.Controller of Legal Metrology, Bellary wherein the
petitioner is shown as Proprietor, but there is no
documentary proof with regard to her income is
concerned. In the absence of documentary proof, the
notional income of the petitioner is taken as
Rs.7,000/p.m. as the accident is of the year 2015.
Regarding the loss of income during the period of
treatment is concerned, the petitioner was inpatient
for a period of 10 days as could be seen from the
Discharge Summary and IP Record and due to the
grievous injuries sustained by the petitioner and on
account of the surgery, the petitioner might have taken
4 months bed rest and during that period, the
petitioner has suffered loss of income. Hence, I award
Rs.28,000/ towards loss of income during the
treatment period .
50. The petitioner's further case is that she has
incurred huge medical expenses for her treatment and
SCCH-1 47 MVC No.4400-4403/2016
has produced 133 medical bills to the tune of
Rs.1,79,051/ at Ex.P.24. In the crossexamination by
the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, the
petitioner has admitted that she was having the Star
Health Insurance and the same is availed only for her
expenses and not for the entire family and she can
produce the documents regarding the medical
reimbursement. She has denied the suggestion that
the entire amount of medical expenses is covered
under the Star Health Insurance and her family
members have not spent any amount towards
medication. On verification of the medical bills, Star
Health Insurance has reimbursed Rs.2,81,476/ but
the petitioner has not claimed the said amount. At
Sl.No.69, the petitioner has produced ambulance bill
for Rs.2,300/ and also produced receipts for
Rs.29,900/ for having paid nursing charges to look
after her. An amount of Rs.59,952/ is mentioned at
Sl.No.133 in the memo but no corresponding bill or
SCCH-1 48 MVC No.4400-4403/2016
receipt for the said amount has been produced. The
remaining bills are for purchase of medicines and
consumables. The petitioner has also produced 4
medical bills at Ex.P.57 amounting to Rs.2,900/ .
Therefore, I have accepted the medical bills to the
tune of Rs.94,271/ only and the same is rounded off
to Rs.95,000/ . Hence, I award Rs.95,000/ towards
medical expenses.
51. The petitioner was inpatient in the hospital
for a period of 10 days. The petitioner has produced
ambulance bill to the tune of Rs.2,300/ for travelling
from Sakra Hospital to Apartment. The petitioner has
also produced receipts for having paid salary for a
nurse, who was attending her during her treatment
period to the tune of Rs.29,990/. But the said receipts
are not proved and the same appears on the higher
side. Therefore, as, the petitioner during the period of
treatment, might have spent some amount towards
conveyance, food and nourishment and attendant
SCCH-1 49 MVC No.4400-4403/2016
charges, I award a sum of Rs.25,000/ as
compensation under the head of conveyance, food
and nourishment, attendant charges and other
incidental charges.
52. At the age of 53 years, the petitioner has
suffered fracture injuries. She will have some
discomfort throughout her life. Hence, taking into
consideration of the injuries suffered by the petitioner
and its consequences, I award Rs.25,000/ under the
head of loss of amenities.
53. details of compensation, to which the
petitioner is entitled to is as under:
Sl. Head of Compensation Amount
No.
1. Pain and Sufferings Rs. 50,00000
2. Medical expenses Rs. 95,00000
3. Loss of income during the Rs. 28,00000
period of inpatient and period
of treatment.
SCCH-1 50 MVC No.4400-4403/2016
4. Food and nourishment, Rs. 25,00000
conveyance , attendant
charges and other incidental
expenses
5. Loss of amenities Rs. 25,00000
Total Rs. 2,23,00000
The petitioner in M.V.C. No.4403/2016 is entitled
for a sum of Rs.2,23,000/.
54. In so far as awarding of interest on the
compensation amount is concerned, in MFA
No.103557/2016 (Sriram General Ins. Co. Ltd Vs Smt.
Lakshmi & others) (DD.20032018) the Hon'ble High
Court has held that as per Sec. 34 of CPC, the rate of
interest that can be awarded on judgments cannot be
more than 6% and that since Sec. 149 of the Motor
Vehicles Act provides for interest on judgments, the
interest to be awarded in claim petitions has to be 6%
per annum and not more than that. Hence, in the case
on hand, interest at the rate of 6% per annum is
awarded.
SCCH-1 51 MVC No.4400-4403/2016
55. As regards the liability is concerned, the
respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is
the Insurer of Lorry bearing No. TN34W1179. The
policy was valid from 22.05.2015 to 21.04.2016 and
the accident has occurred on 19.10.2015. Therefore,
as on the date of accident, the insurance policy was
valid and hence, both the respondents are jointly and
severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners
in all the cases. However, primary liability is fixed on
respondent No.2, insurance company to satisfy the
award. Accordingly, Point No.3 is answered partly in
the affirmative.
56. Issue No.4: In view of the discussions made
above, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
M.V.C. No.4400/2016 The petition filed by the petitioners is allowed in part against the respondents.
SCCH-1 52 MVC No.4400-4403/2016
The petitioners are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.16,62,000/ with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount with interest. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is fixed on the respondent No.2 Insurance Company and it is directed to pay the compensation amount within two months from the date of this order.
Out of the compensation amount, Rs.40,000/ is apportioned in favour of the petitioner No.3 and the remaining compensation amount is apportioned equally amongst the petitioners No.1 and 2.
Out of the compensation amount to which the petitioners No.1 and 2 are entitled, 50% each with proportionate interest shall be kept in F.D. in their respective names in any nationalized or scheduled SCCH-1 53 MVC No.4400-4403/2016 bank of choice of PW3 for a period of 5 years with liberty to draw the accrued interest periodically and the remaining amount with proportionate interest is ordered to be released to the petitioners No.1 and 2.
The compensation amount apportioned in favour of petitioner No.3 with proportionate interest is ordered to be released to the petitioner No.3. M.V.C. No.4401/2016 The petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in part against the respondents.
The petitioner is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.4,30,000/ with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount with interest. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is fixed on the respondent No.2 Insurance Company and it is directed to pay the SCCH-1 54 MVC No.4400-4403/2016 compensation amount within two months from the date of this order.
As the petitioner is aged 70 years, entire compensation amount together with accrued interest is ordered to be released to the petitioner. M.V.C. No.4402/2016 The petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in part against the respondents.
The petitioner is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.69,40,000/ with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount with interest. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is fixed on the respondent No.2 Insurance Company and it is directed to pay the compensation amount within two months from the date of this order.
SCCH-1 55 MVC No.4400-4403/2016
Out of the compensation amount to which the petitioner is entitled, 30% with proportionate interest shall be kept in F.D. in his name in any nationalized or scheduled bank of choice of PW3 for a period of 5 years with liberty to draw the accrued interest periodically and the remaining amount with proportionate interest is ordered to be released to the petitioner.
M.V.C. No.4403/2016 The petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in part against the respondents.
The petitioner is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.2,23,000/ with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount with interest. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is fixed on the respondent No.2 Insurance Company and it is directed to pay the SCCH-1 56 MVC No.4400-4403/2016 compensation amount within two months from the date of this order.
Out of the compensation amount to which the petitioner is entitled, 50% with proportionate interest shall be kept in F.D. in her name in any nationalized or scheduled bank of her choice for a period of 5 years with liberty to draw the accrued interest periodically and the remaining amount with proportionate interest is ordered to be released to the petitioner.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/ in each case. Original judgment shall be kept in MVC No.4400/2016 and its copy in other cases.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 24th day of January 2020) ( S. MAHALAXMI NERALE) Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes & Member, Prl. M.A.C.T. Bangalore.
SCCH-1 57 MVC No.4400-4403/2016ANNEXURES Witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioners:
P.W.1 : Smt.Shantha Vishwanath C P.W.2 : Dr.Nagaraj B.N. P.W.3 : Sujatha Chidri P.W.4 : Dr.Ananda Reddy Documents marked on behalf of the petitioners:
Ex.P1 : Copy of FIR
Ex.P2 : Copy of mahazar
Ex.P3 : Copy of sketch
Ex.P4 : Copy of IMV Report
Ex.P5 : Copy of Wound Certificate
Ex.P6 : Copy of chargesheet
Ex.P7 &8 Discharge Summaries(2)
Ex.P.9 Lab Report
Ex.P10 Medical bills
Ex.P.11 Ambulance bills(2)
Ex.P.12 Receipts
Ex.P.13 Prescriptions(3)
Ex.P.14 Photos with CD
Ex.P.15 C.T.Scan Films
Ex.P.16 Disability Certificate
Ex.P.17 Neuro behavioral Assessment
sheet
Ex.P.18 &19 Case sheets
Ex.P.20 Copy of Wound Certificate
Ex.P.21 Discharge summary
SCCH-1 58 MVC No.4400-4403/2016
Ex.P.22 Sale Deed
Ex.P.23 C.D.(7)
Ex.P.24 Medical bills
Ex.P.25 Copy of Wound Certificate
Ex.P.26 to 29 Discharge Summaries (4) Ex.P.30 Notarized copy of Trust deed (original compared) Ex.P.31 Eye camp invitation card Ex.P.32 & 33 Online copy of IT returns for the year ending 201415 and 2015 16 Ex.P.34 C.D. Ex.P.35 Medical bills Ex.P.36 Copy of P.M.Report Ex.P.37 Copy of Inquest Report Ex.P.38 Notarized copy of Music Marks card of deceased (original compared) Ex.P.39 to 42 Notarized copy of S.S.L.C., P.U.C., Degree and C.A. Mark cards of deceased (original compared) Ex.P.43 to 47 Notarized copy of Aadhar card, PAN card, election identity card, driving licence , passpost of deceased (original compared) Ex.P.48 Notarized copy of Ration card (original compared) Ex.P.49 Discharge Summaries (5) Ex.P.50 Prescriptions (14) Ex.P.51 Xrays SCCH-1 59 MVC No.4400-4403/2016 Ex.P.52 C.T.Scan Films(10) Ex.P.53 Notarized copy of certificate of verification (original compared) Ex.P.54 Notarized copy of Money receipt (original compared) Ex.P.55 Lab Reports(3) Ex.P.56 Prescriptions (12) Ex.P.57 Medical bills Ex.P.58 Authorization letter Ex.P.59 Case sheet Ex.P.60 C.T.Films(2), MRI films(3), xrays along with reports Ex.P.61 Case sheet Witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents :
RW1 Sanjay Kumar Saksena Documents marked on behalf of the respondents:
Ex.R.1 Authorization letter Ex.R.2 Letter dated 23.2.2018 sent to the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Ex.R.3 Assessment for the year 201617 acknowledgement of Sri C.Amarnath Ex.R.4 I.T.Returns for the year ending 201617.
( S. MAHALAXMI NERALE) Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes & Member, Prl. M.A.C.T. Bangalore.