Bangalore District Court
Is Alleged To Be Travelling vs Had Not Intimated The Accident As Per The ... on 21 August, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL. SMALL CAUSES AND
ADDL. MACT., BANGALORE, (SCCH-7)
Dated this, the 21st day of August, 2015.
PRESENT : SMT.INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR,
B.Com., LL.B. (Spl), L.L.M.,
IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM,
Court of Small Causes,
Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
M.V.C.No.7001/2011
C/w. M.V.C.No.7749, 7750 and 8146/2011
Shri.J.Murali Krishna, ..... PETITIONER IN
S/o J.Jagannathaiah, M.V.C.No.7001/2011
Aged about 44 years,
Resident of Door No.48/1,
8th Ward, Near Old BJP Office,
Bagepalli Town and Taluk,
Chikkaballapur District,
Pin Code-561 207.
(By Sri.D.V.Vishwanath Gowda, Adv.,)
V/s
1. Shri.S.N.Gangaraju, .....RESPONDENTS IN
S/o Narasimhaiah, M.V.C.No.7001/2011
Lorry Owner and Land Lord,
Sonnappanahalli Village,
Betta Halasoor Post,
Jala Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk,
Bangalore District,
Pin Code:562 157.
(RC Holder of the Lorry bearing
Reg.No.KA-05/5643)
2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd,
Micro Office,
Yelahanka Code:072281,
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
2 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
No.7, S.L.N. Buildings,
Near Mother Dairy, G.K.V.K. Post,
New Town, Yelahanka,
Bangalore,
Pin Code: 560 065.
(Vide Policy
No.072281/31/10/02/00006138
Valid from: 26.01.2011 up to
25.01.2012)
3. Shri.V.Bavajan,
S/o Imamsab,
Aged about 28 years,
Residing at 13th Ward,
Ambedkar Nagar,
Bagepali Town and Taluk,
Chikkaballapur District,
Pin Code: 561 207.
(RC Holder of the Car bearing
Reg.No.KA-03/P-1753)
(R-1 By Sri. C.Rajanna, Adv.,)
(R-2 By Sri. R.Basava Raju, Adv.,)
(R-3 Exparte)
Smt.Sridevi, ..... PETITIONER IN
W/o J.Murali Krishna, M.V.C.No.7749/2011
Aged about 40 years,
R/o. Door No.48/1,
8th Ward, Near Old BJP Office,
Bagepalli Town and Taluk,
Chikkaballapur District,
Pin Code-561 207.
(By Sri.D.V.Vishwanath Gowda, Adv.,)
V/s
1. Shri.S.N.Gangaraju, .....RESPONDENTS IN
S/o Narasimhaiah, M.V.C.No.7749/2011
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
3 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
Lorry Owner and Land Lord,
Sonnappanahali Village,
Betta Halasoor Post,
Jala Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk,
Bangalore District,
Pin Code: 562 157.
(RC Holder of the Lorry bearing
Reg.No.KA-05/5643)
2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd,
Micro Office,
Yelahanka Code:072281,
No.7, S.L.N. Buildings,
Near Mother Dairy, G.K.V.K. Post,
New Town, Yelahanka,
Bangalore,
Pin Code: 560 065.
(Vide Policy
No.072281/31/10/02/00006138
Valid from: 26.01.2011 up to
25.01.2012)
3. Shri.V.Bavajan,
S/o Imamsab,
Aged about 28 years,
Residing at 13th Ward,
Ambedkar Nagar,
Bagepali Town and Taluk,
Chikkaballapur District
Pin Code: 561 207.
(RC Holder of the Car bearing
Reg.No.KA-03/P-1753)
(R-1 By Sri. C.Rajanna, Adv.,)
(R-2 By Sri. R.Basava Raju, Adv.,)
(R-3 By Smt. A.N. Shylavathi, Adv.,)
Smt.V.G.Mamatha, ..... PETITIONER IN
W/o Govinda Raju,
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
4 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
Aged about 40 years, M.V.C.No.7750/2011
R/o. Gulur Village & Post.
Bagepalli Taluk,
Chikkaballapur District,
Pin Code-561 207.
(By Sri.D.V.Vishwanath Gowda, Adv.,)
V/s
1. Shri.S.N.Gangaraju,
S/o Narasimhaiah, .....RESPONDENTS IN
Lorry Owner and Land Lord, M.V.C.No.7750/2011
Sonnappanahali Village,
Betta Halasoor Post,
Jala Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk,
Bangalore District,
Pin Code: 562 157.
(RC Holder of the Lorry bearing
Reg.No.KA-05/5643)
2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd,
Micro Office,
Yelahanka Code:072281,
No.7, S.L.N. Buildings,
Near Mother Dairy, G.K.V.K. Post,
New Town, Yelahanka,
Bangalore,
Pin Code: 560 065.
(Vide Policy
No.072281/31/10/02/00006138
Valid from: 26.01.2011 up to
25.01.2012)
3. Shri.V.Bavajan,
S/o Imamsab,
Aged about 28 years,
Residing at 13th Ward,
Ambedkar Nagar,
Bagepali Town and Taluk,
Chikkaballapur District
Pin Code: 561 207.
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
5 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
(RC Holder of the Car bearing
Reg.No.KA-03/P-1753)
(R-1 By Sri. C.Rajanna, Adv.,)
(R-2 By Sri. R.Basava Raju, Adv.,)
(R-3 By Smt. A.N. Shylavathi, Adv.,)
Master.M.Yashwanth, ..... PETITIONER IN
S/o J.Murali Krishna, M.V.C.No.8146/2011
Aged about 13 years.
Since Minor being represented by
his father-cum-natural
Guardian Sri.J.Murali Krishna
S/o Jagannathaiah,
Resident of Door No. 48/1,
8th Ward, Near Old BJP Office,
Bagepalli Town and Taluk,
Chikkaballapur District,
Pin Code: 561 207.
(By Sri.D.V.Vishwanath Gowda, Adv.,)
V/s
1. Shri.S.N.Gangaraju, .....RESPONDENTS IN
S/o Narasimhaiah, M.V.C.No.8146/2011
Lorry Owner and Land Lord,
Sonnappanahali Village,
Betta Halasoor Post,
Jala Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk,
Bangalore District,
Pin Code: 562 157.
(RC Holder of the Lorry bearing
Reg.No.KA-05/5643)
2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd,
Micro Office,
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
6 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
Yelahanka Code:072281,
No.7, S.L.N. Buildings,
Near Mother Dairy, G.K.V.K. Post,
New Town, Yelahanka,
Bangalore,
Pin Code: 560 065.
(Vide Policy
No.072281/31/10/02/00006138
Valid from: 26.01.2011 up to
25.01.2012)
3. Shri.V.Bavajan,
S/o Imamsab,
Aged about 28 years,
Residing at 13th Ward,
Ambedkar Nagar,
Bagepali Town and Taluk,
Chikkaballapur District
Pin Code: 561 207.
(RC Holder of the Car bearing
Reg.No.KA-03/P-1753)
(R-1 By Sri. C.Rajanna, Adv.,)
(R-2 By Sri. R.Basava Raju, Adv.,)
(R-3 By Smt. A.N. Shylavathi, Adv.,)
COMMON JUDGMENT
As per the Order dated 29.04.2013 passed on memo in
M.V.C.No.7001/2011, M.V.C.No.7749/2011,
M.V.C.No.7750/2011 and M.V.C.No.8146/2011 are clubbed
with M.V.C.No.7001/2011 and the common evidence and trial
is conducted in M.V.C.No.7001/2011 and hence,
M.V.C.No.7749/2011, M.V.C.No.7750/2011 and
M.V.C.No.8146/2011 are pending for consideration and
disposal by passing a common judgment.
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
7 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
2. The Petitioner in M.V.C.No.7001/2011 has filed the
said petition as against the Respondents No.1 to 3 under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 praying to award
compensation of Rupees 3,00,000/- with interest at the rated of
12% p.a. from the date of filing of this petition till realization of
the amount, with costs.
3. The brief averments of the Petitioner's case in M.V.C.
No.7001/2011 are as follows;
a) He was a hale and healthy person of 44 years of age,
who was doing petty business, thereby, he was earning Rupees
8,000/- per month, which, he was contributing for the
maintenance and welfare of the family members and family.
b) On 05.06.2011, he along with his son Master
Yeshwanth and his wife Smt.Sridevi and the relative by name
Mamatha were going to Sira of Tumkur District so as to get his
son Master Yeshwanth admitted to Pragathi Residential School
at Sira and on the way to Sira, they were passing on Madhugiri-
Sira Road of Sira Taluk, Tumkur District, while they were so
going near Arahalli gate of Sira Taluk, Tumkur District in a
Maruthi Car bearing Registration No.KA-03/P-1753 (Maruthi
Omni Car), it was about 11.45 a.m., by then, a Lorry bearing
Registration No.KA-05-5643 has parked the entire Lorry in the
middle of the road in the same direction in the direction of
facing West on the road, which runs in the direction of facing
West on the road, which runs in the direction of East to West,
while the Car was so passing, by then, it reached the said place
of Arahalli Gate, by then, in their opposite direction abruptly
and suddenly another Lorry came from Arahalli side towards
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
8 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
Madhugiri side by taking L-turn towards Madugiri and covered
the entire tarred portion of the road, by then, the driver of the
Car, who was driving the said Car at a high speed could not
control or could not take left turn, since the said parked Lorry
was at the middle of the road, as such, the said Car dashed as
against the parked Lorry, thereby, resulting in injuries to all the
inmates of the Car, including him and in the said melee, the
another Lorry, which came by taking a L-turn from North
towards East fled away from the spot.
c) He has sustained injuries and he was treated by the
Doctors and he has undergone treatment and he has incurred
expenditure and the injuries have resulted in permanent
disability.
d) The Sira Police of Tumkur District, in whose
jurisdiction the accident has taken place, have registered a case
as against the driver of the Car in Cr.No.161/2011 for the
offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC.
e) Due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of
the Car and also negligent parking of the Lorry by its driver in
the middle of the road, even though there was sufficient space,
which was available on the foot path.
f) Since the driver of the Car was driving the Car and
the driver of Lorry, who had negligently parked the Lorry in the
middle of the road, who both were driving their respective
vehicles and since the said driver of Lorry was driving the Lorry
as per the instructions during and in the course of employment
under the first Respondent, i.e., owner of the Lorry, as such, the
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
9 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
first Respondent being the owner of the Lorry is vicariously
liable to pay the compensation to him and since, he has insured
his vehicle with the second Respondent and since the policy was
in force as on the date of accident, as such, the second
Respondent is liable to indemnify the first Respondent, so also
the 3rd Respondent is also vicariously liable to pay the
compensation amount to him.
g) The Respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and
severally liable to pay the compensation amount to him, so also,
since the driver of the Car was also driving the said Car as per
the instructions during and in the course of employment under
the 3rd Respondent, as such, the 3rd Respondent is also liable to
pay the compensation to him. All the Respondents No.1 to 3 are
jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to him.
h) The accident took place due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the Car, as such, he is entitled
for a global compensation of Rupees 3,00,000/- towards
injuries, permanent disability, mental shock and agony, pain
and sufferings, medical expenses, hospital expenses, incidental
expenses, conveyance expenses, attendant expenses,
expenditure yet to be incurred by him for treatment, loss of
future prospectus, nutritious food, loss of amenities,
miscellaneous expenses, etc., Hence this petition.
4. Initially, though the notice was duly served on the
Respondent No.1, he was remained absent and hence, he was
placed as exparte. Later, the Respondent No.1 has appeared
before this Tribunal through his Learned Counsel and as per
the Order dated 24.08.2012 passed on I.A.No.II, the exparte
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
10 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
Order is set-aside and the Respondent No.1 is taken on file. The
Respondent No.1 has filed the written statement.
5. In response to the notice, the Respondent No.2 has
appeared before this Tribunal through its Learned Counsel.
But, initially, inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the
Respondent No.2 had not filed the written statement. Later, as
per the Order dated 20.07.2012 passed on I.A.No.I, the written
statement filed by the Respondent No.2 is taken on file.
6. Though the notice was duly served on the
Respondent No.3, he was remained absent and hence, he is
placed as exparte on 16.02.2012.
7. The Respondent No.1 inter-alia denying the entire
case of the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.7001/2011, has further
contended as follows;
a) The claim petition filed by the claimant is not
maintainable either in law or on facts.
b) The petition filed by the claimant clearly establishes
that, the owner of the Car bearing Registration No.KA-03-P-
1753 was driving the Car in a rash and negligent manner and
the Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-05-5643 was not being
driven and the said Lorry was parked. Hence, the question of
attributing negligence on him is not sustainable. The claimant
is put to strict proof regarding the averments made by him that,
the Lorry was parked on the center of the road.
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
11 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
c) The claimant has not made the owner of another
Lorry as a party to the proceedings. Hence, the Petition is liable
to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties.
d) The accident has occurred solely because of the rash
and negligent driving of the driver of the Car, in which, the
claimant is alleged to be travelling.
e) The 3rd Respondent alone is liable to pay the
compensation claimed by the claimant.
f) The claimant's claim for a sum of Rupees 3,00,000/-
towards the injuries, permanent disability, mental shock, pain
and sufferings, expenses claimed under different heads, is
usurious and not substantiated.
g) The Lorry belonging to him was parked towards the
extreme left side of the road and not in the center of the road as
contended by the claimants and the driver of the Car in
question not able to control the Car and in order to avoid on
coming Lorry, has hit the Car towards the rear side of the Lorry
and hence, he cannot be fastened with any liability for the fault
of the Car. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition with exemplary
costs.
8. The Respondent No.2 inter-alia denying the entire
case of the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.7001/2011, has further
contended as follows;
a) In claim petition, the Petitioner was stated in his
complaint before concerned Police Authority as well as in his
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
12 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
claim petition that, he was permanent residency of Bagepalli
Village, Chikkaballapura District and the alleged accident
occurred on 05.06.2011 at about 11.45 a.m., under jurisdiction
of Sira Police Station Limits, Tumkur District. Hence this
Hon'ble Court did not have any territorial jurisdiction to proceed
with the case.
b) At the time of accident, the Lorry bearing No.KA-05-
5643 was parked the same on footpath on left side of the road
by proper parking lights on the indicator lights by 11.45 a.m.,
by putting parking and indicator lights. The accident occurred
solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the Maruthi Van
bearing No.KA-03-P-1753 by its driver dashed against rear right
side of the parked vehicle, since, there was no Insurance Policy
for the covering risk of the passengers in a Maruthi Van, the
jurisdictional Police intentionally implicated the driver of the
Lorry in the charge sheet stating that, the driver of the Lorry is
also responsible for the alleged accident, by taking advantage of
Insurance Policy. Hence, it is clear that, this Lorry bearing
No.KA-05/5643 is not at all responsible for the cause of the
accident. Hence, it is not at all liable to pay any compensation
to the Petitioner.
c) The vehicle in question Tata Lorry bearing
Registration No.KA-05-5643 was covered by Liability only Policy
vide No.072281/31/10/02/00006138 valid from 26.01.2011 to
25.01.2012. The Petitioner is called upon to prove that, there is
any liability on it, if any, is subject to the terms and conditions
of the policy and provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The
liability of it, if any, is subject to the owner of the vehicle
possessing valid vehicular documents. Since, the first
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
13 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
Respondent had not intimated the accident as per the terms
and conditions of the policy, it is not liable to pay any
compensation to the Petitioner.
d) As per Section 134(c) of M.V. Act, it is mandatory
duty of the insured to furnish the particulars of policy, date,
time and place of the accident, particulars of injuries and the
name of the driver and particulars of the driving licence, but,
the insured has not complied with its statutory demand. On
this ground also, it is not liable to pay any compensation and is
liable to be dismissed as against it for non-compliance of
statutory demand.
e) As per Section 158(6) of M.V. Act, it is mandatory
duty of the concerned Investigating Officer to forward all the
relevant documents to the insurer within 30 days from the date
of the information of the alleged accident, but, the same has not
been complied by such Officer.
f) The driver of the Lorry was not holding a valid and
effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question, hence, it
is not liable to pay any compensation to the Petitioner.
g) The claim of Rupees 3,00,000/- made by the
Petitioner as compensation is arbitrary and exorbitant and
opposed to facts of the case and it is obvious that, the claimant
is trying to convert an unfortunate incident into a windfall and
making a false claim.
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
14 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
h) If the compensation is granted, the rate of interest
should not exceed more than 6% in view of the several recent
decisions of our Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka.
i) If the owner of the vehicle has not contested the
claim petition or he is placed exparte before this Hon'ble Court
or he has colluded with the Petitioner, then, it may be permitted
to contest the matter on all the grounds available under Section
170 of M.V. Act.
j) The Petitioner is put to strict proof that, he has not
filed any other similar petition on the alleged accident before
any other Court or Forum on the same cause of action at any
time and other place. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim
petition.
9. The Petitioner in M.V.C.No.7749/2011 has filed the
said petition as against the Respondents No.1 to 3 under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 praying to award
compensation of Rupees 9,00,000/- with interest at the rate of
12% p.a. from the date of filing this petition till realization of the
amount, with costs.
10. The brief averments of the Petitioner's case in M.V.C.
No.7749/2011 are as follows;
a) She was hale and healthy Lady of 40 years of age,
who was doing tailoring work, thereby, she was earning Rupees
6,000/- to Rupees 8,000/- per month, which, she was
contributing for the maintenance and welfare of the family
members and family.
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
15 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
b) On 05.06.2011 she along with her son Master
Yeshwanth and her husband J.Murali Krishna and the relative
by name Mamatha were going to Sira of Tumkur District so as
to get her son Master Yeshwanth admitted to Pragathi
Residential School at Sira and on the way to Sira, they were
passing on Madhugiri-Sira Road of Sira Taluk, Tumkur District,
while they were so going near Arahalli gate of Sira Taluk,
Tumkur District in a Maruthi Car bearing Registration No.KA-
03/P-1753 (Maruthi Omni Car), it was about 11.45 a.m., by
then, a Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-05-5643 has parked
the entire Lorry in the middle of the road in the same direction
of facing West on the road, which runs in the direction of facing
West on the road, which runs in the direction of East to West,
while the Car was so passing, by then, it reached the said place
of Arahalli Gate, by then, in their opposite direction abruptly
and suddenly another Lorry came from Arahalli side towards
Madhugiri side by taking L-turn towards Madugiri and covered
the entire tarred portion of the road, by then, the driver of the
Car, who was driving the said Car at a high speed could not
control or could not take left turn, since the said parked Lorry
was at the middle of the road, as such, the said Car dashed as
against the parked Lorry, which was at the middle of the road,
as such, the said Car dashed as against the parked Lorry,
thereby, resulting in injuries to all the inmates of the Car
including her and in the said melee, the another Lorry, which
came by taking a L-turn from North towards East fled away
from the spot.
c) She has sustained injuries and she was treated by
the Doctors and she has undergone treatment and she has
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
16 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
incurred expenditure and the injuries have resulted in
permanent disability.
d) The Sira Police of Tumkur District, in whose
jurisdiction the accident has taken place, have registered a case
as against the driver of the Car in Cr.No.161/2011 for the
offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC.
e) Due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of
the Car and also negligent parking of the Lorry by its driver in
the middle of the road, even though there was sufficient space,
which was available on the foot path.
f) Since the driver of the Car was driving the Car and
the driver of Lorry, who had negligently parked the Lorry in the
middle of the road, who both were driving their respective
vehicles and since the said driver of Lorry was driving the Lorry
as per the instructions during and in the course of employment
under the first Respondent, i.e., owner of the Lorry, as such, the
first Respondent being the owner of the Lorry is vicariously
liable to pay the compensation to her and since, he has insured
his vehicle with the second Respondent and since the policy was
in force as on the date of accident, as such, the second
Respondent is liable to indemnify the first Respondent, so also
the 3rd Respondent is also vicariously liable to pay the
compensation amount to her.
g) The Respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and
severally liable to pay the compensation amount to her, so also,
since the driver of the Car was also driving the said Car as per
the instructions during and in the course of employment under
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
17 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
the 3rd Respondent, as such, the 3rd Respondent is also liable to
pay the compensation to her. All the Respondents No.1 to 3 are
jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to her.
h) The accident took place due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the Car, as such, he is entitled
for a global compensation of Rupees 9,00,000/- towards
injuries, permanent disability, mental shock and agony, pain
and sufferings, medical expenses, hospital expenses, incidental
expenses, conveyance expenses, attendant expenses,
expenditure yet to be incurred by him for treatment, loss of
future prospectus, nutritious food, loss of amenities,
miscellaneous expenses, etc., Hence this petition.
11. In response to the notice, the Respondent No.1 has
appeared before this Tribunal through his Learned Counsel.
But, initially, inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the
Respondent No.1 had not filed the written statement. Later, as
per the Order dated 24.07.2012 passed on I.A.No.II, the written
statement filed by the Respondent No.1 is taken on file.
12. In response to the notice, the Respondent No.2 has
appeared before this Tribunal through its Learned Counsel.
But, initially, inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the
Respondent No.2 had not filed the written statement. Later, as
per the Order dated 20.07.2012 passed on I.A.No.I, the written
statement filed by the Respondent No.2 is taken on file.
13. In response to the notice, the Respondent No.3 has
appeared before this Tribunal through his Learned Counsel.
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
18 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
But, inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the Respondent
No.3 has not filed the written statement.
14. The Respondent No.1 inter-alia denying the entire
case of the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.7749/2011, has further
contended as follows;
a) The claim petition filed by the claimant is not
maintainable either in law or on facts.
b) The petition filed by the claimant clearly establishes
that, the owner of the Car bearing Registration No.KA-03-P-
1753 was driving the Car in a rash and negligent manner and
the Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-05-5643 was not being
driven and the said Lorry was parked. Hence, the question of
attributing negligence on him is not sustainable. The claimant
is put to strict proof regarding the averments made by him that,
the Lorry was parked on the center of the road.
c) The claimant has not made the owner of another
Lorry as a party to the proceedings. Hence, the Petition is liable
to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties.
d) The accident has occurred solely because of the rash
and negligent driving of the driver of the Car, in which, the
claimant is alleged to be travelling.
e) The 3rd Respondent alone is liable to pay the
compensation claimed by the claimant.
f) The claimant's claim towards the injuries,
permanent disability, mental shock, pain and sufferings,
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
19 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
expenses claimed under different heads, is usurious and not
substantiated.
g) The Lorry belonging to him was parked towards the
extreme left side of the road and not in the center of the road as
contended by the claimants and the driver of the Car in
question not able to control the Car and in order to avoid on
coming Lorry, has hit the Car towards the rear side of the Lorry
and hence, he cannot be fastened with any liability for the fault
of the Car. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition with exemplary
costs.
15. The Respondent No.2 inter-alia denying the entire
case of the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.7749/2011, has further
contended as follows;
a) In claim petition, the Petitioner was stated in her
complaint before concerned Police Authority as well as in her
claim petition that, she was permanent residency of Bagepalli
Village, Chikkaballapura District and the alleged accident
occurred on 05.06.2011 at about 11.45 a.m., under jurisdiction
of Sira Police Station Limits, Tumkur District. Hence, this
Hon'ble Court did not have any territorial jurisdiction to proceed
with the case.
b) At the time of accident, the Lorry bearing No.KA-05-
5643 was parked the same on footpath on left side of the road
by proper parking lights on the indicator lights by 11.45 a.m.,
by putting parking and indicator lights. The accident occurred
solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the Maruthi Van
bearing No.KA-03-P-1753 by its driver dashed against rear right
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
20 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
side of the parked vehicle, since, there was no Insurance Policy
for the covering risk of the passengers in a Maruthi Van, the
jurisdictional Police intentionally implicated the driver of the
Lorry in the charge sheet stating that, the driver of the Lorry is
also responsible for the alleged accident, by taking advantage of
Insurance Policy. Hence, it is clear that, this Lorry bearing
No.KA-05/5643 is not at all responsible for the cause of the
accident. Hence, it is not at all liable to pay any compensation
to the Petitioner.
c) The vehicle in question Tata Lorry bearing
Registration No.KA-05-5643 was covered by Liability only Policy
vide No.072281/31/10/02/00006138 valid from 26.01.2011 to
25.01.2012. The Petitioner is called upon to prove that, there is
any liability on it, if any, is subject to the terms and conditions
of the policy and provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The
liability of it, if any, is subject to the owner of the vehicle
possessing valid vehicular documents. Since, the first
Respondent had not intimated the accident as per the terms
and conditions of the policy, it is not liable to pay any
compensation to the Petitioner.
d) As per Section 134(c) of M.V. Act, it is mandatory
duty of the insured to furnish the particulars of policy, date,
time and place of the accident, particulars of injuries and the
name of the driver and particulars of the driving licence, but,
the insured has not complied with its statutory demand. On
this ground also, it is not liable to pay any compensation and is
liable to be dismissed as against it for non-compliance of
statutory demand.
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
21 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
e) As per Section 158(6) of M.V. Act, it is mandatory
duty of the concerned Investigating Officer to forward all the
relevant documents to the insurer within 30 days from the date
of the information of the alleged accident, but, the same has not
been complied by such Officer.
f) The driver of the Lorry was not holding a valid and
effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question, hence, it
is not liable to pay any compensation to the Petitioner.
g) The claim of Rupees 9,00,000/- made by the
Petitioner as compensation is arbitrary and exorbitant and
opposed to facts of the case and it is obvious that, the claimant
is trying to convert an unfortunate incident into a windfall and
making a false claim.
h) If the compensation is granted, the rate of interest
should not exceed more than 6% in view of the several recent
decisions of our Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka.
i) If the owner of the vehicle has not contested the
claim petition or he is placed exparte before this Hon'ble Court
or he has colluded with the Petitioner, then, it may be permitted
to contest the matter on all the grounds available under Section
170 of M.V. Act.
j) The Petitioner is put to strict proof that, she has not
filed any other similar petition on the alleged accident before
any other Court or Forum on the same cause of action at any
time and other place. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim
petition.
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
22 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
16. The Petitioner in M.V.C.No.7750/2011 has filed the
said petition as against the Respondents No.1 to 3 under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 praying to award
compensation of Rupees 9,00,000/- with interest at the rate of
12% p.a. from the date of filing this petition till realization of the
amount, with costs.
17. The brief averments of the Petitioner's case in M.V.C.
No.7750/2011 are as follows;
a) She was a hale and healthy Lady of 40 years of age,
apart from attending house-hold work, she was also doing
tailoring work, thereby, she was earning Rupees 6,000/- to
Rupees 8,000/- per month, which, she was contributing for the
maintenance and welfare of the family members and family.
b) On 05.06.2011 she along with her family friends
were going to Sira of Tumkur District so as to meet her son,
who was studying at Pragathi Residential School at Sira and on
the way to Sira, they were passing on Madhugiri-Sira Road of
Sira Taluk, Tumkur District, while they were so going near
Arahalli gate of Sira Taluk, Tumkur District in a Maruthi Car
bearing Registration No.KA-03/P-1753 (Maruthi Omni Car), it
was about 11.45 a.m., by then, a Lorry bearing Registration
No.KA-05-5643 has parked the entire Lorry in the middle of the
road in the same direction of facing West on the road, which
runs in the direction of facing West on the road, which runs in
the direction of East to West, while the Car was so passing, by
then, it reached the said place of Arahalli Gate, by then, in their
opposite direction abruptly and suddenly another Lorry came
from Arahalli side towards Madhugiri side by taking L-turn
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
23 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
towards Madugiri and covered the entire tarred portion of the
road, by then, the driver of the Car, who was driving the said
Car at a high speed could not control or could not take left turn,
since the said parked Lorry was at the middle of the road, as
such, the said Car dashed as against the parked Lorry, which
was at the middle of the road, as such, the said Car dashed as
against the parked Lorry, thereby, resulting in injuries to all the
inmates of the Car including her and in the said melee, the
another Lorry, which came by taking a L-turn from North
towards East fled away from the spot.
c) She has sustained injuries and she was treated by
the Doctors and she has undergone treatment and she has
incurred expenditure and the injuries have resulted in
permanent disability.
d) The Sira Police of Tumkur District, in whose
jurisdiction the accident has taken place, have registered a case
as against the driver of the Car in Cr.No.161/2011 for the
offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC.
e) The accident took place due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the Car and also negligent
parking of the Lorry by its driver in the middle of the road, even
though there was sufficient space, which was available on the
foot path.
f) Since the driver of the Car was driving the Car and
the driver of Lorry, who had negligently parked the Lorry in the
middle of the road, who both were driving their respective
vehicles and since the said driver of Lorry was driving the Lorry
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
24 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
as per the instructions during and in the course of employment
under the first Respondent, i.e., owner of the Lorry, as such, the
first Respondent being the owner of the Lorry is vicariously
liable to pay the compensation to her and since, he has insured
his vehicle with the second Respondent and since the policy was
in force as on the date of accident, as such, the second
Respondent is liable to indemnify the first Respondent, so also
the 3rd Respondent is also vicariously liable to pay the
compensation amount to her.
g) The Respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and
severally liable to pay the compensation amount to her, so also,
since the driver of the Car was also driving the said Car as per
the instructions during and in the course of employment under
the 3rd Respondent, as such, the 3rd Respondent is also liable to
pay the compensation to her. All the Respondents No.1 to 3 are
jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to her.
h) The accident took place due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the Car, as such, he is entitled
for a global compensation of Rupees 9,00,000/- towards
injuries, permanent disability, mental shock and agony, pain
and sufferings, medical expenses, hospital expenses, incidental
expenses, conveyance expenses, attendant expenses,
expenditure yet to be incurred by him for treatment, loss of
future prospectus, nutritious food, loss of amenities,
miscellaneous expenses, etc., Hence this petition.
18. In response to the notice, the Respondent No.1 has
appeared before this Tribunal through his Learned Counsel.
But, initially, inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
25 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
Respondent No.1 had not filed the written statement. Later, as
per the Order dated 24.07.2012 passed on I.A.No.II, the written
statement filed by the Respondent No.1 is taken on file.
19. In response to the notice, the Respondent No.2 has
appeared before this Tribunal through its Learned Counsel.
But, initially, inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the
Respondent No.2 had not filed the written statement. Later, as
per the Order dated 20.07.2012 passed on I.A.No.I, the written
statement filed by the Respondent No.2 is taken on file.
20. In response to the notice, the Respondent No.3 has
appeared before this Tribunal through his Learned Counsel.
But, inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the Respondent
No.3 has not filed the written statement.
21. The Respondent No.1 inter-alia denying the entire
case of the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.7750/2011, has further
contended as follows;
a) The claim petition filed by the claimant is not
maintainable either in law or on facts.
b) The petition filed by the claimant clearly establishes
that, the owner of the Car bearing Registration No.KA-03-P-
1753 was driving the Car in a rash and negligent manner and
the Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-05-5643 was not being
driven and the said Lorry was parked. Hence, the question of
attributing negligence on him is not sustainable. The claimant
is put to strict proof regarding the averments made by him that,
the Lorry was parked on the center of the road.
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
26 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
c) The claimant has not made the owner of another
Lorry as a party to the proceedings. Hence, the Petition is liable
to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties.
d) The accident has occurred solely because of the rash
and negligent driving of the driver of the Car, in which, the
claimant is alleged to be travelling.
e) The 3rd Respondent alone is liable to pay the
compensation claimed by the claimant.
f) The claimant's claim towards the injuries,
permanent disability, mental shock, pain and sufferings,
expenses claimed under different heads, is usurious and not
substantiated.
g) The Lorry belonging to him was parked towards the
extreme left side of the road and not in the center of the road as
contended by the claimants and the driver of the Car in
question not able to control the Car and in order to avoid on
coming Lorry, has hit the Car towards the rear side of the Lorry
and hence, he cannot be fastened with any liability for the fault
of the Car. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition with exemplary
costs.
22. The Respondent No.2 inter-alia denying the entire
case of the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.7750/2011, has further
contended as follows;
a) In claim petition, the Petitioner was stated in her
complaint before concerned Police Authority as well as in her
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
27 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
claim petition that, she was permanent residency of Bagepalli
Village, Chikkaballapura District and the alleged accident
occurred on 05.06.2011 at about 11.45 a.m., under jurisdiction
of Sira Police Station Limits, Tumkur District. Hence, this
Hon'ble Court did not have any territorial jurisdiction to proceed
with the case.
b) At the time of accident, the Lorry bearing No.KA-05-
5643 was parked the same on footpath on left side of the road
by proper parking lights on the indicator lights by 11.45 a.m.,
by putting parking and indicator lights. The accident occurred
solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the Maruthi Van
bearing No.KA-03-P-1753 by its driver dashed against rear right
side of the parked vehicle, since, there was no Insurance Policy
for the covering risk of the passengers in a Maruthi Van, the
jurisdictional Police intentionally implicated the driver of the
Lorry in the charge sheet stating that, the driver of the Lorry is
also responsible for the alleged accident, by taking advantage of
Insurance Policy. Hence, it is clear that, this Lorry bearing
No.KA-05/5643 is not at all responsible for the cause of the
accident. Hence, it is not at all liable to pay any compensation
to the Petitioner.
c) The vehicle in question Tata Lorry bearing
Registration No.KA-05-5643 was covered by Liability only Policy
vide No.072281/31/10/02/00006138 valid from 26.01.2011 to
25.01.2012. The Petitioner is called upon to prove that, there is
any liability on it, if any, is subject to the terms and conditions
of the policy and provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The
liability of it, if any, is subject to the owner of the vehicle
possessing valid vehicular documents. Since, the first
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
28 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
Respondent had not intimated the accident as per the terms
and conditions of the policy, it is not liable to pay any
compensation to the Petitioner.
d) As per Section 134(c) of M.V. Act, it is mandatory
duty of the insured to furnish the particulars of policy, date,
time and place of the accident, particulars of injuries and the
name of the driver and particulars of the driving licence, but,
the insured has not complied with its statutory demand. On
this ground also, it is not liable to pay any compensation and is
liable to be dismissed as against it for non-compliance of
statutory demand.
e) As per Section 158(6) of M.V. Act, it is mandatory
duty of the concerned Investigating Officer to forward all the
relevant documents to the insurer within 30 days from the date
of the information of the alleged accident, but, the same has not
been complied by such Officer.
f) The driver of the Lorry was not holding a valid and
effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question, hence, it
is not liable to pay any compensation to the Petitioner.
g) The claim of Rupees 9,00,000/- made by the
Petitioner as compensation is arbitrary and exorbitant and
opposed to facts of the case and it is obvious that, the claimant
is trying to convert an unfortunate incident into a windfall and
making a false claim.
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
29 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
h) If the compensation is granted, the rate of interest
should not exceed more than 6% in view of the several recent
decisions of our Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka.
i) If the owner of the vehicle has not contested the
claim petition or he is placed exparte before this Hon'ble Court
or he has colluded with the Petitioner, then, it may be permitted
to contest the matter on all the grounds available under Section
170 of M.V. Act.
j) The Petitioner is put to strict proof that, she has not
filed any other similar petition on the alleged accident before
any other Court or Forum on the same cause of action at any
time and other place. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim
petition.
23. The Petitioner in M.V.C.No.8146/2011 has filed the
said petition as against the Respondents No.1 to 3 under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 praying to award
compensation of Rupees 27,00,000/- with interest at the rate of
12% p.a. from the date of filing this petition till realization of the
amount, with costs.
24. The brief averments of the Petitioner's case in M.V.C.
No.8146/2011 are as follows;
a) He was a hale and healthy boy of 13 years of age,
who was a brilliant student, studying in 7th Standard, who was
very active and who was actively participating in sports and
other cultural activities.
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
30 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
b) On 05.06.2011, he along with his parents and the
family friend by name Mamatha were going to Sira Town of
Tumkur District so as to get admitted to Pragathi Residential
School at Sira and on the way to Sira, they were passing on
Madhugiri-Sira Road of Sira Taluk, Tumkur District, while they
were so going near Arahalli gate of Sira Taluk, Tumkur District
in a Maruthi Car bearing Registration No.KA-03/P-1753
(Maruthi Omni Car), it was about 11.45 a.m., by then, a Lorry
bearing Registration No.KA-05-5643 has parked the entire Lorry
in the middle of the road in the same direction in the direction
of facing West on the road, which runs in the direction of facing
West on the road, which runs in the direction of East to West,
while the Car was so passing, by then, it reached the said place
of Arahalli Gate, by then, in their opposite direction abruptly
and suddenly another Lorry came from Arahalli side towards
Madhugiri side by taking L-turn towards Madugiri and covered
the entire tarred portion of the road, by then, the driver of the
Car, who was driving the said Car at a high speed could not
control or could not take left turn, since the said parked Lorry
was at the middle of the road, as such, the said Car dashed as
against the parked Lorry, thereby, resulting in injuries to all the
inmates of the Car, including him and in the said melee, the
another Lorry, which came by taking a L-turn from North
towards East fled away from the spot.
c) He has sustained injuries and he was treated by the
Doctors and he has undergone treatment and he has incurred
expenditure and the injuries have resulted in permanent
disability.
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
31 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
d) The Sira Police of Tumkur District, in whose
jurisdiction the accident has taken place, have registered a case
as against the driver of the Car in Cr.No.161/2011 for the
offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC.
e) His father, who is a business man, who was earning
not less than Rupees 8,000/- per month, has lost his income,
so also, his mother, who was a tailor by profession, who was
earning Rupees 6,000/- to Rupees 8,000/- per month from the
above avocation, both of them, lost their income till today, since
they are attending him at Hospitals of Bangalore.
f) In view of the disability, which he has sustained, he
needs a continue attendants, so as to attend his needs, so also
his academic year and Carrier was also lost, he has became dull
in studies in view of the head and brain injuries.
g) Due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of
the Car and also negligent parking of the Lorry by its driver in
the middle of the road, even though there was sufficient space,
which was available on the foot path.
h) The Doctors have advised to take pills, which will
have a drowsy effect, as such, he will become dull in studies, in
the event of he discontinuing the said pills, then, there is every
chances of him getting fits as told to him by the Doctors.
i) Since the driver of the Car was driving the Car and
the driver of Lorry, who had negligently parked the Lorry in the
middle of the road, who both were driving their respective
vehicles and since the said driver of Lorry was driving the Lorry
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
32 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
as per the instructions during and in the course of employment
under the first Respondent, i.e., owner of the Lorry, as such, the
first Respondent being the owner of the Lorry is vicariously
liable to pay the compensation to him and since, he has insured
his vehicle with the second Respondent and since the policy was
in force as on the date of accident, as such, the second
Respondent is liable to indemnify the first Respondent, so also
the 3rd Respondent is also vicariously liable to pay the
compensation amount to him.
j) The Respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and
severally liable to pay the compensation amount to him, so also,
since the driver of the Car was also driving the said Car as per
the instructions during and in the course of employment under
the 3rd Respondent, as such, the 3rd Respondent is also liable to
pay the compensation to him. All the Respondents No.1 to 3 are
jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to him.
k) Since the accident took place due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the Car, as such, he is entitled
for a global compensation of Rupees 27,00,000/- towards
injuries, permanent disability, mental shock and agony, pain
and sufferings, medical expenses, hospital expenses, incidental
expenses, conveyance expenses, attendant expenses,
expenditure yet to be incurred by him for treatment, loss of
future prospectus, nutritious food, loss of amenities,
miscellaneous expenses, marriage prospectus, loss of his
academic year, loss of income of the parents, ambulance
charges for shifting the injured to various Hospitals for
treatment and follow-up treatment, etc., Hence this petition.
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
33 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
25. In response to the notice, the Respondent No.1 has
appeared before this Tribunal through his Learned Counsel.
But, initially, inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the
Respondent No.1 had not filed the written statement. Later, as
per the Order dated 24.07.2012 passed on I.A.No.II, the written
statement filed by the Respondent No.1 is taken on file.
26. In response to the notice, the Respondent No.2 has
appeared before this Tribunal through its Learned Counsel.
But, initially, inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the
Respondent No.2 had not filed the written statement. Later, as
per the Order dated 20.07.2012 passed on I.A.No.I, the written
statement filed by the Respondent No.2 is taken on file.
27. In response to the notice, the Respondent No.3 has
appeared before this Tribunal through his Learned Counsel.
But, inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the Respondent
No.3 has not filed the written statement.
28. The Respondent No.1 inter-alia denying the entire
case of the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.8146/2011, has further
contended as follows;
a) The claim petition filed by the claimant is not
maintainable either in law or on facts.
b) The petition filed by the claimant clearly establishes
that, the owner of the Car bearing Registration No.KA-03-P-
1753 was driving the Car in a rash and negligent manner and
the Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-05-5643 was not being
driven and the said Lorry was parked. Hence, the question of
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
34 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
attributing negligence on him is not sustainable. The claimant
is put to strict proof regarding the averments made by him that,
the Lorry was parked on the center of the road.
c) The claimant has not made the owner of another
Lorry as a party to the proceedings. Hence, the Petition is liable
to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties.
d) The accident has occurred solely because of the rash
and negligent driving of the driver of the Car, in which, the
claimant is alleged to be travelling.
e) The 3rd Respondent alone is liable to pay the
compensation claimed by the claimant.
f) The claimant's claim towards the injuries,
permanent disability, mental shock, pain and sufferings,
expenses claimed under different heads, is usurious and not
substantiated.
g) The Lorry belonging to him was parked towards the
extreme left side of the road and not in the center of the road as
contended by the claimants and the driver of the Car in
question not able to control the Car and in order to avoid on
coming Lorry, has hit the Car towards the rear side of the Lorry
and hence, he cannot be fastened with any liability for the fault
of the Car. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition with exemplary
costs.
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
35 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
29. The Respondent No.2 inter-alia denying the entire
case of the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.8146/2011, has further
contended as follows;
a) In claim petition, the Petitioner was stated in his
complaint before concerned Police Authority as well as in his
claim petition that, he was permanent residency of Bagepalli
Village, Chikkaballapura District and the alleged accident
occurred on 05.06.2011 at about 11.45 a.m., under jurisdiction
of Sira Police Station Limits, Tumkur District. Hence, this
Hon'ble Court did not have any territorial jurisdiction to proceed
with the case.
b) At the time of accident, the Lorry bearing No.KA-05-
5643 was parked the same on footpath on left side of the road
by proper parking lights on the indicator lights by 11.45 a.m.,
by putting parking and indicator lights. The accident occurred
solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the Maruthi Van
bearing No.KA-03-P-1753 by its driver dashed against rear right
side of the parked vehicle, since, there was no Insurance Policy
for the covering risk of the passengers in a Maruthi Van, the
jurisdictional Police intentionally implicated the driver of the
Lorry in the charge sheet stating that, the driver of the Lorry is
also responsible for the alleged accident, by taking advantage of
Insurance Policy. Hence, it is clear that, this Lorry bearing
No.KA-05/5643 is not at all responsible for the cause of the
accident. Hence, it is not at all liable to pay any compensation
to the Petitioner.
c) The vehicle in question Tata Lorry bearing
Registration No.KA-05-5643 was covered by Liability only Policy
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
36 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
vide No.072281/31/10/02/00006138 valid from 26.01.2011 to
25.01.2012. The Petitioner is called upon to prove that, there is
any liability on it, if any, is subject to the terms and conditions
of the policy and provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The
liability of it, if any, is subject to the owner of the vehicle
possessing valid vehicular documents. Since, the first
Respondent had not intimated the accident as per the terms
and conditions of the policy, it is not liable to pay any
compensation to the Petitioner.
d) As per Section 134(c) of M.V. Act, it is mandatory
duty of the insured to furnish the particulars of policy, date,
time and place of the accident, particulars of injuries and the
name of the driver and particulars of the driving licence, but,
the insured has not complied with its statutory demand. On
this ground also, it is not liable to pay any compensation and is
liable to be dismissed as against it for non-compliance of
statutory demand.
e) As per Section 158(6) of M.V. Act, it is mandatory
duty of the concerned Investigating Officer to forward all the
relevant documents to the insurer within 30 days from the date
of the information of the alleged accident, but, the same has not
been complied by such Officer.
f) The driver of the Lorry was not holding a valid and
effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question, hence, it
is not liable to pay any compensation to the Petitioner.
g) The claim of Rupees 9,00,000/- made by the
Petitioner as compensation is arbitrary and exorbitant and
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
37 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
opposed to facts of the case and it is obvious that, the claimant
is trying to convert an unfortunate incident into a windfall and
making a false claim.
h) If the compensation is granted, the rate of interest
should not exceed more than 6% in view of the several recent
decisions of our Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka.
i) If the owner of the vehicle has not contested the
claim petition or he is placed exparte before this Hon'ble Court
or he has colluded with the Petitioner, then, it may be permitted
to contest the matter on all the grounds available under Section
170 of M.V. Act.
j) The Petitioner is put to strict proof that, she has not
filed any other similar petition on the alleged accident before
any other Court or Forum on the same cause of action at any
time and other place. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim
petition.
30. Based on the above said pleadings, my Learned
Predecessor-in-Office has framed the following Issues;
ISSUES
In M.V.C.No.7001/2011
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that the
accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the Car bearing
Registration No.KA-03-P-1753 and
negligent parking of the Lorry bearing
Reg. No.KA-05-5643 by its drivers and
in the said accident, the Petitioner
sustained injuries?
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
38 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, how much and
from whom?
3. What Order or Award?
In M.V.C.No.7749/2011
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that the
accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the Car bearing
Registration No.KA-03-P-1753 and
negligent parking of the Lorry bearing
Reg. No.KA-05-5643 by its drivers and in
the said accident, the Petitioner sustained
injuries?
2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, how much and from
whom?
3. What Order or Award?
In M.V.C.No.7750/2011
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that the
accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the Car bearing
Registration No.KA-03-P-1753 and
negligent parking of the Lorry bearing
Reg. No.KA-05-5643 by its drivers and in
the said accident, the Petitioner sustained
injuries?
2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, how much and from
whom?
3. What Order or Award?
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
39 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
In M.V.C.No.8146/2011
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that the
accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the Car bearing
Registration No.KA-03-P-1753 and
negligent parking of the Lorry bearing
Reg. No.KA-05-5643 by its drivers and in
the said accident, the Petitioner sustained
injuries?
2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, how much and from
whom?
3. What Order or Award?
31. In order to prove their case, the Petitioner in M.V.C.
No.7001/2011 himself has been examined as P.W.1, the
Petitioner in M.V.C.No.7749/2011 herself has been examined as
P.W.3, the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.7750/2011 herself has been
examined as P.W.2 and the minor guardian of the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.8146/2011 has been examined as P.W.4 and the
Petitioners in M.V.C.No.7001/2011, M.V.C.No.7749/2011 and
M.V.C.No.8146/2011have also examined one witness as P.W.5
by filing the affidavits as their examination-in-chief and have
placed reliance upon Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.35. On the other hand, the
Respondent No.2 has examined its Assistant Manager as R.W.1
by filing an affidavit as his examination-in-chief and has placed
reliance upon Ex.R.1 to Ex.P.3. On the other hand, the
Respondent No.1 has not adduced any evidence on his behalf.
32. Heard the arguments.
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
40 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
33. In support of the submission, the Learned Counsel
appearing for the Petitioners Sri.D.V.Vishwanath Gowda has
placed reliance upon the decisions reported in,
i) 1981 ACJ 273 High Court of Karnataka
(Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore
V/s Krishnan and Others), wherein, it is observed that,
(b) Negligence-Composite negligence-
Accident between two buses resulting in
injury to passengers-injured passengers did
not contribute to the accident -Whether a
case of composite negligence- Held: yes-
Whether Tribunal was justified in
apportioning the liability between the two
bus drives-Held: no; both the drivers are
jointly and severally liable to pay the
compensation.
13. Therefore, in the present cases as well,
there is no question of the victims
contributing in any way to the cause of
accident. The present cases are clearly
cases of composite negligence. Hence, both
the drivers are jointly and severally liable to
pay the compensation.
ii) 1985 ACJ 150 High Court of Karnataka (S.D.
Balaji V/s Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation,
Bangalore), wherein, it is observed that,
Negligence-Composite negligence-Joint
tort-feasors-Pillion rider-Accident between a
bus and moped due to the negligence of
both drivers- Claim for injuries sustained
by the pillion rider on the moped-Whether
any deduction be made from the
compensation awardable to pillion rider for
the contributory negligence of the moped
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
41 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
rider- Held: no; pillion rider has nothing to
do with the occurrence of the accident; he
can proceed against any one of the joint
tort-feasors who are jointly and severally
liable.
7. We shall next consider whether any
amount has to be deducted in global
compensation. The Tribunal deducted 1/3rd
of it on the basis that, the driver of the
Suvega was also responsible for the
accident and he contributed 1/3rd to the
cause of the accident. It is obviously illegal.
The Tribunal has confused itself without
making any distinction between the
contributory negligence and composite
negligence. The Suvega rider, no doubt,
contributed to the cause of the accident
and to that, extent, he was liable for the
cause of the accident. But, it is not so with
the pillion rider. He has nothing to do with
the driving of the Suvega so far as he is
concerned, the accident was the result of
composite negligence both on the part of
the driver of Suvega and the driver of the
bus and it is settled law in torts that, the
injured can proceed against any one of the
joint tort feasors who are jointly and
severally liable to pay the compensation.
Therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in
deducting 1/3rd of the total compensation
awarded in the case of pillion rider, who
had nothing to do with the occurrence of
the accident.
iii) 1986 ACJ 561 High Court of Karnataka (Rama
Bai alias Meenakshi V/s H.Mukunda Kamath and Others),
wherein, it is observed that,
Negligence-Contributory negligence -
Composite negligence-meaning of-Bus and
Lorry coming from opposite directions
grazed each other while crossing resulting
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
42 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
in injuries to a passenger in the bus-
Tribunal held that, accident due to
composite negligence of both drivers and
apportioned liability between bus and Lorry
at 50% each-Evidence that, both the
vehicles were being driven at an abnormal
speed and were not going on their proper
side and neither did they give any signal or
horn-Lorry owner contended that, the bus
was overtaking a tempo going ahead of it-
This story was rejected as there was no
mention about the tempo in the FIR or in
the spot mahazar- Tarred portion of the
road was 23 feet wide and there was kucha
portion on either side measuring 7.7"-Held;
accident caused due to composite
negligence of both the drivers and
apportionment set aside as it was not a
case of contributory negligence.
Negligence-Composite negligence -
Apportionment of liability-Accident caused
due to the composite negligence of Lorry
and bus drivers resulting in injuries to a
bus passenger- whether liability in case of
composite negligence can be apportioned
Held; no; because the claimant is at liberty
to recover the whole amount of
compensation from owner/driver of either
vehicle.
16. Thus, where a person is injured
without any negligence on his part but, as
a combined effect of the negligence of two
other persons, it is not a case of
contributory negligence but, is a case of
composite negligence. The question of
contributory negligence would arise where
the Plaintiff by the own conduct also had
contributed to the negligence. But, if the
claimant is injured as the result of the
negligence of two wrong doers B & C, it is a
case of composite negligence but, not a
case of contributory negligence. In
composite negligence, wrongdoers are other
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
43 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
than the injured or the deceased person
and he does not contribute to the events
leading to the accident which results in
injuries or even death
16-A. The material on record clearly
establishes that, the accident took place
only on account of the rash and negligent
driving of the bus and the Lorry by their
respective drivers and that, the claimant
did not contribute anything to the accident.
27. Learned Counsel Andrade who
appears for the insurer of the bus,
contended that, the liability of R-2 is
limited to Rupees 5,000. As per the policy
Exh.D6 which contains an endorsement
Exh.P13 (b), it is clear that, the liability of
the Insurance Company of the bus is
limited to Rupees 5,000/- per passenger.
Therefore, the trail court was justified in
limiting the liability of R-2 to Rupees 5,000
only. So far as regards the Oriental
Insurance Company which has insured the
Lorry is concerned, the liability is
unlimited. As it is a case of composite
negligence every vehicle would be liable to
pay the entire amount of compensation.
Therefore there is no question of
contribution or apportionment between
than at all (vide Manjula Devi Bhuta
V.Manjusri Raha, 1968 ACJ 1 (MP). Paras
49 & 50. The trial Court, in our opinion,
committed an error in apportioning the
amount ad 50:50 between the bus and the
Lorry. Claimant is at liberty to recover the
amount of compensation from the owner
and the driver and insurer of the bus and
from the owner and the driver of the Lorry
and the Insurance Company of the Lorry or
from any one of them. But, however, we
would like to make it clear that, the liability
of R-2 United India Insurance Company,
which has insured the bus, is limited only
to Rupees 5,000. The liability of Oriental
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
44 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
Insurance Company is unlimited in this
case.
28. We would like to make it clear that,
the claimant is entitled to get the said
compensation amount with future interest
there on at the rate of 6% per annum from
the date of petition till its recovery from the
Respondents, as stated above the
Respondents should pay the court and both
appeals and should bear their own
throughout the lawyers fee is fixed at
Rupees 200/-.
iv) 2008 ACJ 1165 Supreme Court of India (T.O.
Anthony V/s Karvarnan and Others), wherein, it is observed
that,
Words and phrases-Composite
negligence-What is-Where a person is
injured as a result of negligence of two or
more wrongdoers-Each wrong doer is
jointly and severally liable to the injured for
payment of entire damages and the injured
has choice of proceeding against all or any
of them.
5. The Tribunal assumed that, the extent
of negligence of the appellant and
respondent No.1 is 50:50 because it was a
case of composite negligence. The Tribunal,
were find, fell into a common error
committed by several Tribunals, in
proceeding on the assumption that,
composite negligence and contributory
negligence are the same. In an accident
involving two or more vehicles, where a
third party (other than the drivers) and/or
owners of the vehicles involved) claims
damages for loss or injuries, it is said that,
the compensation is payable in respect of
the composite negligence of the drivers of
those vehicles. But, in respect of such an
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
45 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
accident, if the claim is by one of the
drivers himself for personal injuries, or by
the legal heirs of one of the drivers for loss
on account of his death, or by the owner of
one of the vehicles in respect of damages to
his vehicle, then the issue that, arises is
not about the composite negligence of all
the drivers, but, about the contributory
negligence of the driver concerned.
6. Composite negligence refers to the
negligence on the part of the two or more
persons. Where a person is injured as a
result of negligence on the part of two or
more wrongdoers, it is said that, the person
was injured on account of composite
negligence of those wrongdoers. In such a
case, each wrong doers, its jointly and
severally liable to the injured for payment
of the entire damages and the injured
person has the choice of proceeding against
all or any of them. In such a case, the
injured need not establish the extent of
responsibility of each wrongdoer separately,
nor is it necessary for the court to
determine the extent of liability of each
wrongdoer separately. On the other hand,
where a person suffers injury, a partly due
to negligence on the part of another person
or persons, and partly as a result of his
own negligence then the negligence on the
part of the injured which contributed to the
accident is referred to as his contributory
negligence. Where the injured is guilty of
some negligence, his claim for damages is
not defeated merely by reason of the
negligence on his part but the damages
recoverable by him in respect of the injuries
sand reduced in proportion to his
contributory negligence.
v) 2010 ACJ 1770 High Court of Punjab and
Haryana at Chandigarh (United India Insurance Co. Ltd V/s
Neena Ghai and Others), wherein, it is observed that,
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
46 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
Negligence-Leaving vehicle in a dangerous
position-Car trying to give pass to a bus
dashed against a stationary truck result in
death of a passenger in Car-Truck was
parked in the middle of a busy highway
without giving any indication-Tribunal held
that, truck driver was negligent in causing
the accident-Appellate court observed that,
on a busy highway drivers are not expected
to park their vehicle in the middle of the
road and that, too without giving any
indication-Mere fact that, it was day time
and driver of the Car could have easily seen
the parked vehicles does not mitigate the
negligence of the truck driver-Tribunal's
finding upheld.
3. I have given my thoughtful
consideration to the matter. The accident in
the present case occurred on 28.12.2004,
Panna Lal Ghai (deceased) along with his
wife Neena Ghai (Respondent No.10 and his
driver, namely Sarwan Singh were traveling
in their Maruti Car. The Car was driven by
Sarwan Singh and Panna Lal Ghai
(deceased) was sitting on the front seat. His
wife Neena Ghai (Respondent No.1) was
sitting on the rear seat. Near Kalyan Farm
cut, the offending truck was parked in the
middle of the road and its driver Girdhari
Lal Joshi (Respondent No.5) had not given
any indication in this regard. Driver of the
Car went towards the left side of the road to
give pass to a bus that, was overtaking the
Car, the Car dashed n the loaded stationary
offending truck. On account of the accident
which occurred due to negligent parking of
the offending truck by Girdhari Lal joshi
(Respondent No.5), Panna Lal died.
4. The Learned Tribunal after
considering the evidence and material on
record held that, Panna Lal Ghai died as a
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
47 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
result of rash and negligent act of the truck
driver Giridhari Lal Joshi (Respondent
No.5). The contention of the learned
counsel for the appellant that, the truck
was parked in the middle of the road during
day time and middle of the road during day
time and therefore, was clearly visible and
the act of negligence cannot be fastened on
the truck driver is without basis. The Grant
Truck Road near Karnal is a busy highway
and the drivers are not expected to park
their vehicles in the middle of the road and
that, too without giving any indication. In a
moving traffic, the truck ahs to be either off
the road or keep moving and is not to the
parked in the middle of the road. The mere
fact that, it was day time and the driver of
the Car could have easily seen the vehicle
does not mitigate the gross negligence of
the truck driver.
34. My answers to the above said Issues are as follows;
In M.V.C.No.7001/2011
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative,
The Petitioner is
entitled for compensation of
Rupees 51,257/- with
interest at the rate of 6%
p.a. from the date of the
petition till the date of
payment from the
Respondents No.2 and 3 in
the ratio of 80:20
respectively.
Issue No.3 : As per the final Order,
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
48 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
In M.V.C.No.7749/2011
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative,
The Petitioner is
entitled for compensation
of Rupees 88,483/- with
interest at the rate of 6%
p.a. from the date of the
petition till the date of
payment, from the
Respondents No.2 and 3 in
the ratio of 80:20
respectively.
Issue No.3 : As per the final Order,
In M.V.C.No.7750/2011
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative,
The Petitioner is entitled
for compensation of Rupees
90,680/- with interest at
the rate of 6% p.a. from the
date of the petition till the
date of payment, from the
Respondents No.2 and 3 in
the ratio of 80:20
respectively.
Issue No.3 : As per the final Order,
In M.V.C.No.8146/2011
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative,
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
49 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
The Petitioner is entitled
for compensation of Rupees
7,68,863/- with interest at
the rate of 6% p.a. from the
date of the petition till the
date of payment, from the
Respondents No.2 and 3 in
the ratio of 80:20
respectively.
Issue No.3 : As per the final Order,
for the following;
REASONS
35. ISSUE NO.1 IN ALL THE CASES :- The P.W.1, who
is the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.7001/2011 has stated in his
examination-in-chief that, on 05.06.2011 along with his son
Master Yeshwanth, who is the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.8146/2011, his wife Smt. Sridevi, who is the
Petitioner in M.V.C.No.7749/2011 and his relative Mamata,
who is the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.7750/2011, he was going to
Sira of Tumkur District, so as to get his son Master Yeshwanth
admitted to Pragathi Residential School at Sira and on the way
to Sira, they were passing on Madhugiri-Sira Road of Sira
Taluk, Tumkur District, while they were so going near Arahalli
Gate of Sira Taluk, Tumkur District, in a Maruthi Car bearing
Registration No.KA-01-P-1753, i.e., Maruthi Omni Car, it was
about 11.45 a.m., by then, the Lorry parked in the middle of the
road without any cautions or signal, at that time, in their
opposite direction abruptly and suddenly another Lorry came
from Arahalli side towards Madhugiri side by taking left turn
towards Madhugiri and covered the entire tarred portion of the
road, the Car driver dashed his Car as against the parked Lorry,
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
50 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
thereby, resulting in injuries to the inmates of the vehicle, i.e.,
himself and his family members and relative. He has further
stated that, he has sustained multiple injuries on the left
tempero parietal region, blunt injury on the left chest, injury on
the left ankle, injury on the left fore arm and other injuries. He
has further stated that, immediately after the accident, he was
shifted to the Government General Hospital, Sira Town and
Taluk, Tumkur District, wherein, he was given first-aid
treatment and was referred to major Hospitals of Bangalore for
further and follow-up treatment and accordingly, he was shifted
to NIMHANS Hospital, Bangalore, wherein, he was treated for
some time and again, he was shifted to Manipal Hosptial,
Bangalore, wherein, he was admitted as an inpatient for a
period of one day and discharged on 06.06.2011. He has further
stated that, the said accident took place due to the carelessness
of the driver of the Lorry, who parked the vehicle in the middle
of the road, as such, the Sira Police of Tumkur District, in
whose jurisdiction, the said accident took place, have registered
a case as against both the drivers of the vehicle, i.e., Car and
Lorry in Crime No.161/2011, for the offences punishable under
Section 279 and 337 of IPC and later, the said Police have also
submitted charge sheet as against both the drivers of Lorry and
Car for the offences punishable under Section 279, 337, 338
and 283 of IPC R/w Section 196 of IMV Act.
36. The P.W.2, who is the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.7750/2011, has also stated the same evidence of
P.W.1, in her examination-in-chief. She has further stated that,
she has sustained injuries i.e., head injury, injury on the left
eye brow, loss of right upper lateral incisor teeth, loss of right
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
51 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
lower lateral incisor teeth and loosening of other teeth from
sockets, deep cut lacerated wound over right upper lip, deep cut
lacerated wound over the right side of the lips and 2 inches in
length, injury on the left tempero mandibular joint, injury on
the left eye resulting in black eye, fracture of bilateral nasal
bones, and other injuries. She has further stated that,
immediately after the accident, she was shifted to the
Government General Hospital, Sira Town and Taluk, Tumkur
District, wherein, she was given first-aid treatment and was
referred to major Hospitals of Bangalore for further and follow-
up treatment and accordingly, she was shifted to NIMHANS
Hospital, Bangalore, wherein, she was treated for some time
and then, she was shifted to Mangal's Nursing Home,
Yeshwanthapura, Bangalore, wherein, she was admitted as an
inpatient on the same day, i.e., on 05.06.2011 and treated to
the injuries and discharged on 13.06.2011. She has further
stated that, the Sira Police of Tumkur District, in whose
jurisdiction, the said accident took place, have registered a case
as against both the drivers of the vehicles, i.e., Car and Lorry in
Crime No.161/2011, on the file of JMFC, Sira, wherein, both
the drivers have pleaded guilty and were sentenced to pay fine
and accordingly, they have paid the same.
37. The P.W.3, who is the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.7749/2011, has stated the same evidence of P.W.1
and P.W.2, in her examination-in-chief. She has further stated
that, she has also sustained injuries, i.e., comminuted fracture
of middle 3rd of both bones of right leg (Segmental fracture of
mid-shaft of Fibula and fracture head of fibula) and Lacerated
wound over the fore head measuring 7 x 3 cms and other
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
52 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
injuries and immediately after the accident, she was shifted to
the Government Hospital, Sira, wherein, she was given first-aid
treatment and was referred to major Hospitals of Bangalore for
further and follow-up treatment and accordingly, she was
shifted to NIMHANS Hospital, Bangalore, wherein, she was
treated one day and again shifted to Manipal Hospital,
Bangalore, wherein, she was admitted as an inpatient on
06.06.2011 and she was discharged on 10.06.2011.
38. The P.W.4, who is the father of the minor Petitioner
in M.V.C.No.8146/2011, who is also the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.7001/2011, has also stated the same evidence of
P.W.1 to P.W.3, in his examination-in-chief. He has further
stated that, his son had sustained injuries, i.e., severe
Traumatic brain injury left Hemiparesis, fracture of tibia and
fibula right side, comminuted fracture distal shaft of fibula with
displacement fragments, fracture of left clavicle, fracture of
Hemiparesis, right lesser wing splicnoid, fracture of left
cribriform, fracture of bilateral fronto parietal bone, fracture of
bilateral frontal bone, fracture of parietal bone, fracture of
temporal bone, fracture of right nasal bone, fracture of left side
fronto parietal bone, left sided hematoma, ventricular bleed,
loss of proper vision of the left eye ball of his son and other
injuries. He has further stated that, immediately after the
accident, his son was shifted to the Government Hospital, Sira
Town and Taluk, Tumkur District, wherein, he was given first-
aid treatment and was referred to major Hospital of Bangalore
for further and follow-up treatment and accordingly, his son
was shifted to NIMHANS Hospital, Bangalore, wherein, he was
treated and then, he was referred to Manipal Hospital,
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
53 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
Bangalore, wherein, he was treated and then, he was referred to
Manipal Hospital, Bangalore, wherein, he was admitted as an
inpatient from 05.06.2011 to 05.08.2011 and then, he was
discharged. He has further stated that, again his son was
admitted in the said Hospital on 10.09.2011 till 03.10.2011,
then, again admitted at Advantage Seniors Foundation, Indira
Nagar, Bangalore, for the purpose of Physiotherapy on
05.08.2011 till October 2011. He has further stated that, again
his son was admitted at St. Martha's Hospital, Bangalore, on
31.10.2011, wherein, his son was diagnosed to have post
traumatic sequalance, left hemisprasis, hypathna, left
dyoarthria, left paresis left foot, drop, left elbow contracture,
seizure disorder. He has further stated that, his son was
admitted on 31.01.2011 at the said Hospital, he had lesser and
loss of vision, for which, eye specialist advise was taken, he
diagnosed to have multiple muscle palay both eyes with internal
opthalmopal and he was discharged on 14.01.2012. He has
further stated that, in all, his son was admitted as an inpatient
for a period of more than 4 months at different Hospitals of
Bangalore.
39. No doubt, the P.W.1 in his cross-examination has
stated that, the road on which, the accident was occurred, was
a straight road and he has seen the said Lorry about 200 - 300
meters distance and his Car was proceeding with 50 - 60 kmph
and there was a mud road on either side of the said road and
the width of the said mud portion is about 10 - 15. From this, it
appears that, the mud portion of the road was level to the main
road. He has further stated that, at the time of accident, no
vehicle was coming from his opposite side. The P.W.2 has
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
54 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
further stated in his cross-examination that, the width of the
road was double road and the said road was straight road and
their driver saw the moving vehicles and she was sit in the back
seat and at the time of accident, no vehicle coming in front of
their vehicle and their vehicle was moving 35 - 40 kmph. She
has further stated that, she has not lodged a complaint before
the Police and she has not gone through the contents of FIR and
Complaint and the Complainant is not known to her. She has
clearly admitted that, there is no negligence on the part of the
standing Lorry, but, the negligence is on the part of their vehicle
and she has not produced the statement recorded by the Police.
She has further stated that, she has not admitted in the
NIMHANS Hospital and she has taken treatment in the said
Hospital as an outpatient and she has not produced the CT
Scan Report and Discharge Summary issued by Mangala
Hospital. The P.W.3 has stated in her cross-examination that,
she has not taken treatment from any other Hospital after
discharge from Manipal Hospital and she has not remembering
whether she has given statement before the Police or not. The
P.W.4 has further stated in his cross-examination that, on that
day, they were 4 persons were traveling except driver and he
was sitting on the back seat and he has not produced any
documents to show that, at the time of accident, his son was
studying at 6th standard and she has produced the documents
to show that, his son had taken treatment at NIMHANS
Hospital. Further the Respondent No.2 has examined its
Assistant Manager as R.W.1, who has stated in his
examination-in-chief that, at the time of accident, the driver of
the Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-05-5643 was parked the
same on footpath on left side of the road by proper parking
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
55 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
lights and indicator lights by 11.45 a.m., by putting parking
and indicator lights and the said accident occurred solely due to
the rash and negligent driving of the Maruthi Van bearing
Registration No.KA-03-P-1753 by its driver, which dashed as
against rear right side of the parked vehicle, since there was no
Insurance Policy in respect of the said Car for covering risk of
the passengers in a Maruthi Van, the jurisdictional Police
intentionally implicated the driver of the Lorry in the charge
sheet stating that, the driver of the Lorry is also responsible for
the alleged accident, by taking advantage of Insurance Policy.
He has further stated that, the Lorry bearing Registration
No.KA-05-5643 is not at all responsible for the cause of the
accident. The Respondent No.2 has also produced Ex.R.3
Charge Sheet.
40. But, based on the said evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4,
which has been elicited from their mouth by the Respondent
No.2 and the evidence of R.W.1, it cannot be said that, the
entire negligence is on the part of the driver of the Maruthi Car
bearing Registration No.KA-01-P-1753, wherein, all the
Petitioners were traveling at the time of accident and there are
no merits in the above said oral version of P.W.1 to P.W.4,
which has been stated by them in their examination-in-chief
and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the
Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-05-5643, as, the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.7001/2011 has produced Ex.P.1 FIR, Ex.P.2
Complaint, Ex.P.3 Spot Panchanama, Ex.P.4 Wound Certificate
and Ex.P.5 MVI Report, the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.7750/2011
has produced Ex.P.7 Charge Sheet, Ex.P.8 Substance of
Accusation, Ex.P.9 Order Sheet in C.C.No.1349/2011 and
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
56 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
Ex.P.10 Wound Certificate and the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.7749/2011 has produced Ex.P.15 Wound Certificate,
Ex.P.16 Discharge Summary, Ex.P.17 Radiological Report and
Ex.P.20 X-ray Films 3 in numbers and the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.8146/2011 has produced Ex.P.21 Wound Certificate,
Ex.P.22 Discharge Summaries 2 in numbers, Ex.P.23 Resident's
Report, Ex.P.24 Clinical Summary, Ex.P.25 Eye Check Report,
Ex.P.32 X-ray Film, which clearly disclosed that, due to
negligence on the part of both the drivers of the said Car and
Lorry, the said road traffic accident was taken place on
05.06.2011 at 11.45 a.m., near Arahalli Gate of Sira Taluk,
Tumkur District, wherein, all the Petitioners have sustained
injuries in the said road traffic accident, who were proceeding in
the said offending Car, which is clear from the following
discussion. Furthermore, the Petitioners in
M.V.C.No.7001/2011, M.V.C.No.7749/2011 and
M.V.C.No.8146/2011 have examined the Medico Legal Officer of
Manipal Hospital, Bangalore, as P.W.5, who has stated in his
examination-in-chief that, he has examined the said Petitioners
and issued the Wound Certificates and by admitting in their
Hospital, they took treatment to the accidental injuries. In
support of his evidence, the P.W.5 has also produced Ex.P.33 to
Ex.P.35 Case Sheets relating to the said Petitioners, which
clearly disclosed about the injuries sustained by the said
Petitioners in the said road traffic accident and with a history of
the said road traffic accident, they were admitted in the said
Hospital to take treatment to the said accidental injuries, which
is also clear from the following discussion.
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
57 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
41. The contents of Ex.P.1 FIR and Ex.P.2 Complaint
clearly disclosed that, the eye witness, namely, Kamegowda S/o
Late Kamegowda had lodged Ex.P.2 Complaint before the Sira
Police as against the driver of the offending Maruthi Car bearing
Registration No.KA-01-P-1753 by alleging that, on 05.06.2011
at 11.45 a.m., when he was taking tea in front of Hotel
belonging to Mahalingappa, which is situated at Arahalli Gate,
the said offending Maruthi Omini Car came from Madhugiri
with high speed, rash and negligent manner and dashed to the
Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-05-5643 on its right side hind
portion, which was stopping on the footpath road and due to
which, the inmates of the Car, namely, Nagarjuna, Mamatha,
Murali, Sridevi and Yashawanth had sustained injuries and
thereafter, they were shifted to the Government Hospital, Sira,
through 108 Ambulance and the number of the Car, which
caused the said accident is KA-01-P-1753, which is a Maruthi
Omini Car and based on the said Ex.P.2 Complaint, the said
Police have registered a criminal case as against the driver of
the Maruthi Car bearing Registration No.KA-01-P-1753 for the
offences punishable under Section 279 and 337 of IPC under
Crime No.161/2011. But, there is no allegation made by the
said complainant in Ex.P.2 Complaint as against the driver of
the said Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-05-5643, in Ex.P.1
FIR and Ex.P.2 Complaint. But, based on the same, it cannot be
said that, the entire negligence is on the part of the driver of the
offending Maruthi Car bearing Registration No.KA-01-P-1753
and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the said
Lorry in committing the said road traffic accident, as, the above
referred Police documents, which have been produced by the
Petitioners, are clearly disclosed about the involvement of the
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
58 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
said Lorry as well as its driver in the said road traffic accident,
which is clear from the following discussion. Furthermore, it is
clear from the contents of Ex.P.1 FIR and Ex.P.2 Complaint
that, there is no delay as such in lodging Ex.P.2 Complaint by
the complainant, who is an eye witness of the said road traffic
accident. Further, the involvement of the offending Lorry
bearing Registration No.KA-05-5643 in the said road traffic
accident is very much clear from the contents of Ex.P.1 FIR and
Ex.P.2 Complaint.
42. The contents of Ex.P.3 Spot Panchanama and Ex.P.5
MVI Report clearly disclosed about the very involvement of the
offending Maruthi Car bearing Registration No.KA-01-P-1753 as
well as the Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-05-5643 in the
said road traffic accident, which was taken place on 05.06.2011
at 11.45 a.m. The damages caused to both the said offending
vehicles are clearly mentioned Ex.P.5 MVI Report, which clearly
disclosed about the terrific impact of the said accident. It is also
clearly mentioned in Ex.P.5 MVI Report that, the said accident
was not occurred due to any mechanical defects of both the
offending Car and Lorry. The very involvement of the said
offending Car and Lorry in the said road traffic accident is
clearly proved from these material documents.
43. The contents of Ex.P.4 Wound Certificate issued by
the Manipal Hospital clearly disclosed that, with a history of
road traffic accident near Sira, which was occurred on
05.06.2011 at 12 noon, the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.7001/2011
was shifted to the Hospital and on examination, it is found that,
he had sustained multiple abrasion and swelling over the left
tempero partial region, blunt injury on the left chest, abrasion
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
59 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
over the left ankle and abrasion over left forearm. It is clear
from the nature of the said injuries shown in Ex.P.4 Wound
Certificate that, in the said road traffic accident, the Petitioner
in M.V.C.No.7001/2011 had sustained four simple injuries. The
contents of Ex.P.14 X-ray Films 3 in numbers also disclosed
about the nature of the said injuries sustained by the Petitioner
in M.V.C.No.7001/2011 in the said road traffic accident. The
P.W.5 has also stated that, he has examined the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.7001/2011 on 05.06.2011, who was came to their
Hospital with a the history of road traffic accident and initially,
he was treated at Government Hospital, Sira and he has issued
the Wound Certificate. He has further stated that, the said
Petitioner had sustained Multiple abrasion and swelling over the
left tempero parietal region, blunt injury on the left chest,
abrasion over the left ankle and abrasion over the left fore arm
and he was admitted to their Hospital on 05.06.2011 and he
was discharged on 06.06.2011. The P.W.5 has also produced
Ex.P.33 Case Sheet relating to the said Petitioner, which clearly
disclosed about the line of treatment given to the Petitioner on
05.06.2011 and 06.06.2011, i.e., for 2 days. From the said
material evidence, it clearly goes to show that, in the said road
traffic accident, the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.7001/2011 had
sustained four simple injuries and he took treatment to the said
injuries by admitting as an inpatient for 2 days, i.e., 05.06.2011
and 06.06.2011.
44. The contents of Ex.P.10 Wound Certificate relating
to the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.7750/-2011 disclosed that, on
05.06.2011 at 9.30 p.m., the said Petitioner was admitted in
Mangal's Nursing Home for treatment to the injuries said to
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
60 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
have been caused due to the accident, which was taken place
on 05.06.2011 at 12.00 p.m., and on examination, it is found
that, she had sustained the injuries, i.e., head injury, fracture
of nasal bones, loss of upper teeth, Left black eye, CLW over
right side of lip 2 cms. sutured upper lip and CLW over right
lower lip whole thickness, i.e., 3 grievous injuries and two
simple injuries.
45. The contents of Ex.P.15 Wound Certificate disclosed
that, with a alleged history of road traffic accident, near Sira
said to have occurred on 05.06.2011 at 12 noon, the Petitioner
in M.V.C.No.7749/2011 was shifted to Manipal Hospital and on
examination, it is found that, she had sustained the injuries,
i.e., comminuted fracture of middle third of both bones of right
leg and lacerated wound over the fore head measuring 7 x 3
cms, i.e., one grievous injury and one simple injury. The
contents of Ex.P.16 Discharge Summary, Ex.P.17 Radiological
Report and Ex.P.20 X-ray Film further clearly disclosed that, by
admitting as an inpatient from 06.06.2011 to 10.06.2011 at
Manipal Hospital, i.e., for 5 days, the said Petitioner took
treatment to the said accidental injuries, which are one grievous
injury and one simple injury. It is also clearly mentioned in
Ex.P.16 Discharge Summary that, with a history of road traffic
accident, she was admitted to the Hospital to take treatment to
the communited fracture middle third both bones right leg and
lacerated wound forehead. The P.W.5 has also clearly stated
that, he has examined the said Petitioner on 05.06.2011 and
she had sustained comminuted fracture of middle third of both
bones of right leg and lacerated wound over the fore head
measuring 7 x 3 cms, i.e., one grievous injury and one simple
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
61 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
injury, she was admitted in their Hospital on 06.06.2011 and
discharged on 10.06.2011. From this, it is made crystal clear
that, in the said road traffic accident, the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.7149/2011 had sustained one grievous injury and
one simple injury and by admitting as an inpatient from
06.06.2011 to 10.03.2011, i.e., for 5 days, she took treatment to
the said accidental injuries in the Manipal Hospital. From this,
it is further made crystal clear that, in the said road traffic
accident, the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.7149/2011 had sustained
one grievous injuries and one simple injury.
46. The contents of Ex.P.21 Wound Certificate clearly
disclosed that, with a alleged history of road traffic accident,
which was occurred on 05.06.2011 at 4.00 p.m., the Petitioner
in M.V.C.No.8146/2011 was shifted to the Hospital and one
examination, it is found that, he had sustained injuries, i.e.,
head injury with fracture of bilateral frontal frontal parietal and
temporal bone noted with EDH and SAH, fracture of right side
both bones, which are grievous in nature. From the said
material documents, it clearly goes to shows that, in the said
road traffic accident, the said Petitioner had sustained two
grievous injuries. The contents of Ex.P.22 Discharge Summaries
two in numbers, Ex.P.23 Residence Report, Ex.P.24 Clinical
Summary, Ex.P.25 Eye Checkup Report and Ex.P.32 X-ray Film
further clearly disclosed that, the said Petitioner by admitting as
an inpatient from 31.10.2011 to 14.01.2012, i.e., for 76 days,
he took treatment to the accidental injuries at St. Martha's
Hospital, from 09.07.2011 to 05.08.2011, i.e., for 28 days, he
took treatment at Manipal Hospital, in total 104 days, he took
treatment to the accidental injuries. The P.W.5 has also
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
62 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
produced Ex.P.35 Case Sheet relating to Yashwanth, which
clearly disclosed about the line of treatment taken by the said
Petitioner in Manipal Hospital by admitting as an inpatient for
28 days from 09.07.2011 to 05.08.2011. From this material
evidence, it clearly goes to show that, in the said road traffic
accident, the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.8146/2011 had sustained
two grievous injuries and by admitting as an inpatient at St.
Martha's Hospital and Manipal Hospital, totally for 104 days, he
took treatment to the accidental injuries by admitting as an
inpatient.
47. The contents of Ex.P.7 and Ex.R.3 Charge Sheet
clearly disclosed that, since during the course of investigation, it
is found that, the Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-05-5643
was stopped by its driver on Tar road of 3/4th portion and mud
footpath road of 1/4th portion without giving any indication and
signal and safety measures, which is a public road, on
05.06.2011 at 11.45 a.m., on Sira to Madhugiri Road and at the
time of accident, the driver of offending Maruthi Omini Car
bearing Registration No.KA-01-P-1753 came from Madhugiri to
Sira with high speed, rash and negligent manner and without
control it, he dashed the Car to the said stopped Lorry and the
all the Petitioners, who were traveling in the said Car had
sustained grievous injuries and the said Car was not having a
valid Insurance Policy and as such, after thorough investigation,
the Investigating Officer has filed a charge sheet as against both
the drivers of the offending Car and offending Lorry, i.e., for the
offences punishable under Section 279, 337 and 338 of IPC and
Section 196 of IMV Act, as against the driver of the Car and for
the offences punishable under Section 283 of IPC as against the
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
63 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
driver of the Lorry. From this, it is made crystal clear that, both
the offending Maruthi Omini Car bearing Registration No.KA-
01-P-1753 as well as offending Lorry bearing Registration
No.KA-05-5643 and its drivers are very much involved in the
said road traffic accident and due to negligence on the part of
both the drivers itself, the said road traffic accident was taken
place. It is pertinent to note here that, it is clear from the
contents of Ex.P.7 and Ex.R.3 Charge Sheet that, by occupying
3/4th of the tar road, the driver of the offending Lorry had
stopped it without any indication, signal and not taken
precautionary measures. It is not found from the Police
documents that, the said Lorry was stopped due to repair and it
could not in a position of movement at the time of accident and
as such, there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the
said offending Lorry, but, the entire negligence is on the part of
the driver of the offending Maruthi Car. Furthermore, the said
accident was taken place at 11.45 a.m., it was a day and as
such, the driver of the offending Car could take Care to avoid
the said accident. It is very much clear from the material
documents that, at the time of accident, the negligence on the
part of the driver of the offending Lorry was more than the
driver of the offending Car. If the driver of the offending Lorry
could stop the offending Lorry by the extreme left side of the
road and had allowed the other moving vehicles to proceed
freely, the said accident could have not occurred. By
considering the negligence on the part of both the drivers of the
offending Car and Offending Lorry and by considering the
allegation made by the Investigating Officer in the charge sheet
after thorough investigation as well as the position of both the
vehicles at the time of accident, this Tribunal feels that, there is
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
64 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
a contributory negligence of 80% on part of the driver of the
offending Lorry and 20% on the part of the driver of the
offending Car. Furthermore, the contents of Ex.P.8 Accusation
and Ex.P.9 Order Sheet in C.C.No.1349/2011, which is relating
to the present road traffic accident, clearly disclosed that, the
driver of the offending Car had pleaded guilty for the offences
punishable under Section 279, 337 and 338 of IPC R/w Section
196 of IMV Act and has paid fine of Rupees 2,300/-. From this,
it is made crystal clear that, the negligence is on the part of the
offending Car is clearly proved and he has clearly admitted his
part of his negligence in the said road traffic accident.
48. Under the above said facts and circumstances as
well as the reasons given, this Tribunal has come to the
conclusion that, both the offending Maruthi Omini Car bearing
Registration No.KA-01-P-1753 as well as the offending Lorry
bearing Registration No.KA-05-5643 and its drivers are very
much involved in the said road traffic accident, wherein, all the
Petitioners were sustained injuries, who are traveling in the said
offending Maruthi Omini Car and there is a contributory
negligence of 80% on the part of the driver of the offending Lorry
and 20% on the part of the driver of the offending Maruthi
Omini Car. Accordingly, I answered Issue No.1 in all the
cases in the Affirmative.
49. ISSUES NO.2 IN ALL THE CASES :-
50. IN M.V.C.NO.7001/2011 :- The P.W.1 has stated
that, he was hale and healthy person of 44 year of age. But, the
Petitioner has not produced any authenticated documents to
consider his age at the time of accident. But, the above said
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
65 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
medical documents produced by the Petitioner are clearly
disclosed that, he was 44 years old at the time of accident.
Hence, the age of the Petitioner is considered as 44 years old at
the time of accident.
51. The P.W.1 has stated that, he was doing petty
business, thereby, he was earning Rupees 8,000/- per month.
In this regard also, except his oral version, the Petitioner has
not produced any material documents to consider his avocation
and income. As this Tribunal has already observed that, at the
time of accident, the Petitioner was 44 years old. Admittedly, the
Petitioner in M.V.C.No.7749/2011 is his wife and the Petitioner
in M.V.C.No.8146/2011 is a son of the said Petitioner. From
this, it appears that, the Petitioner is having a family with wife
and child. Hence, to maintain his family, the Petitioner has been
doing the avocation and getting income. But, the Petitioner has
not proved his avocation and income at the time of accident.
From this, it is made crystal clear that, the Petitioner has not
proved his avocation and income by adducing acceptable
material evidence.
52. The P.W.1 has stated that, he was hale and healthy
person of 44 years of age and he was doing petty business,
thereby he was earning Rupees 8,000/- per month, which he
was contributing for the maintenance and welfare of his family
members and family. He has further stated that, as per the
advise of the Doctor, he was getting follow-up treatment and he
has also taken treatment at St. Martha's Hospital, Bangalore.
He has further stated that, after the accident, inspite of better
treatment, he has not recovered from the injuries sustained by
him in the said accident, since the injuries have resulted in
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
66 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
permanent disability, since he is not in a possession to lift any
weight from his left hand, stand for long time, unable to climb
steps, stairs, so also walk for long distance, thereby, he is
unable to do his petty shop business efficiently unlike the prior
days of accident.
53. No doubt, while discussing above, this Tribunal has
already come to the conclusion that, the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.7749/2011 is a wife and the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.8146/2011 is a son of the Petitioner. From this, it
appears that, he is having a family with wife and son. Based on
Ex.P.4 Wound Certificate, this Tribunal has already come to the
conclusion that, in the said road traffic accident, the Petitioner
had sustained four simple injuries. But, based on the above
said oral version of P.W.1, coupled with the contents of Ex.P.4
Wound Certificate and family status of the Petitioner, it cannot
be come to the conclusion that, due to the said accidental
injuries, the Petitioner is suffering from permanent disability,
as, except Ex.P.4 Wound Certificate issued by the Manipal
Hospital, he has not produced the Discharge Summary to show
that, by admitting as an inpatient in Manipal Hospital and St.
Martha's Hospital, he took treatment to the said accidental
injuries by admitting as an inpatient as per the advise of the
Doctors. Further, the Petitioner has not examined the treated
Doctors. Even though the P.W.5 has produced Ex.P.33 Case
Sheet, he has not stated anything about the line of treatment
given to the Petitioner. Even the Petitioner has not produced the
disability certificate issued by the competent Doctor to show
that, due to the accidental injuries, he is suffering from
permanent physical and functional disability, which comes in
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
67 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
the way of his day today activities. More so, as per Ex.P.4
Wound Certificate, the Petitioner had sustained only four simple
injuries in the said road traffic accident. He has further clearly
stated in his cross-examination that, he has not produced any
documents to show that, he was earning Rupees 8,000/- per
month at the time of accident. The Petitioner has utterly failed
to prove his avocation and income at the time of accident.
Therefore, the Petitioner is not entitled for any compensation
towards loss of future income, loss of earning capacity, loss of
amenities of life, loss of future prospectus, future medical
treatment and its expenses, arising out of the permanent
physical and functional disability.
54. However, as per Ex.P.4 Wound Certificate and
Ex.P.13 X-ray films 3 in numbers and the evidence of P.W.1 and
P.W.5, the Petitioner had sustained four simple injuries in the
said road traffic accident. The Petitioner was in the Hospital as
an inpatient from 05.06.2011 to 06.06.2011, i.e., for 2 days in
Manipal Hospital, as per Ex.P.33 Case Sheet and evidence of
P.W.1 and P.W.5. Since, in the said road traffic accident, the
Petitioner had sustained four simple injuries and as per the
contents of Ex.P.33 Case Sheet, by admitting as an inpatient
from 05.06.2011 and 06.06.2011, i.e., for 2 days, the Petitioner
took treatment to the said accidental injuries at Manipal
Hospital, this Tribunal feels that, it is just, proper and
necessary to award a global compensation of Rupees 25,000/-
to the Petitioner, which is fare, reasonable and acceptable one.
Hence, the Petitioner is entitled for global compensation of
Rupees 25,000/-.
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
68 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
55. The P.W.1 has stated that, during the period of his
hospitalization, he has incurred around Rupees 15,000/-
towards Hospital and Pharmacy Bills of Manipal and other
Hospitals, Rupees 4,000/- for shifting him from Sira to Manipal
Hospital, Bangalore in an Ambulance and he has also incurred
Rupees 3,000/- towards Hospital Bills of St. Martha's Hospital
Bangalore. But, the Petitioner has only produced Ex.P.6 Medical
Bills 13 in numbers, which is amounting of Rupees 14,473/-
and Ex.P.13 Medical Bills 14 in numbers, which is amounting
of Rupees 11,784/-. The Petitioner took treatment as an
inpatient for 2 days in the Manipal Hospital in respect of the
said four simple injuries. Considering the nature of injuries and
the line of treatment given to the Petitioner, the possibility of
spending the said amount for the medicines cannot be doubted.
Therefore, it is necessary to award the said actual medical
expenses of Rupees 14,473/-, which covered under Ex.P.6
Medical Bills and Rupees 11,784/-, which covered under
Ex.P.13 Medical Bills, in total Rupees 26,257/- to the Petitioner.
56. In all, the Petitioner is entitled for Rupees 51,257/-
(Rupees 25,000/- + Rupees 26,257/-) as compensation along
with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the above said
sum from the date of Petition till payment.
57. IN M.V.C.NO.7749/2011 :- The P.W.3 has stated
that, she was hale and healthy person of 40 year of age. But,
the Petitioner has not produced any authenticated documents
to consider her age at the time of accident. But, the above said
medical documents produced by the Petitioner are clearly
disclosed that, she was 43 years old at the time of accident.
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
69 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
Hence, the age of the Petitioner is considered as 43 years old at
the time of accident.
58. The P.W.3 has stated that, he was doing Tailoring
work, thereby, she was earning Rupees 6,000/- to Rupees
8,000/- per month. In this regard also, except her oral version,
the Petitioner has not produced any material documents to
consider her avocation and income. As this Tribunal has
already observed that, at the time of accident, the Petitioner was
43 years old. Admittedly, the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.7001/2011
is her husband and the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.8146/2011 is a
son of the said Petitioner. From this, it appears that, the
Petitioner is having a family with husband and child. In the
absence of the material evidence, by considering the age of the
Petitioner and as well as her family status, this Tribunal feels
that, it is just, proper and necessary to consider the notional
income of the Petitioner is of Rupees 5,000/- per month. Hence,
the notional income of the Petitioner is considered as Rupees
5,000/- per month at the time of accident.
59. The P.W.3 has stated that, she has underwent a
surgery, i.e., open reduction with internal fixation of inter
medullary rod and fixation screws at the Tibial mid shaft and
necessary treatment was furnished and she was discharged on
10.06.2011 with an advise of undergoing follow-up treatment.
60. As this Tribunal has already observed and come to
the conclusion that, based on Ex.P.15 Wound Certificate and
Ex.P.16 Discharge Summary that, in the said road traffic
accident, the Petitioner had sustained one grievous injury and
one simple injury, i.e., Comminuted fracture of middle third of
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
70 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
both bones of right leg and lacerated wound over the fore head
measuring 7 x 3 cms., and by admitting as an inpatient from
06.06.2011 to 10.06.2011, i.e., for 5 days, she took treatment to
the accidental injuries at Manipal Hospital. Since in the said
road traffic accident, the Petitioner had sustained communited
fracture of middle third of both bones of right leg it is clearly
mentioned in Ex.P.16 Discharge Summary that, Interlock
intramedullary nailing right leg + Debridement and suturing
forehead performed and after discharge on 10.06.2011, the
Petitioner could have definitely taken follow-up treatment.
Therefore, the evidence stated by the P.W.3 in respect of the
follow-up treatment is believed and accept.
61. The P.W.3 has stated that, the said injuries, which
she has sustained have resulted in permanent disability to do
the work of tailoring, so also, it is coming in the way of her
attending nature calls, to climb steps, stairs and to get in and to
get down from the Buses, etc., thereby, resulting in loss of
income to her.
62. But, only based on the said oral version of P.W.3 as
well as the contents of Ex.P.15 Wound Certificate, Ex.P.16
Discharge Summary and Ex.P.34 Case Sheet, it cannot be
believed and accept that, due to the said accidental injuries, the
Petitioner is suffering from permanent physical and functional
disability, as, the Petitioner has not produced the disability
certificate issued by the competent Doctor and has not
examined the treated Doctor. Even the Petitioner has not
produced the follow-up medical documents to show that, till
today, she has been taking follow-up treatment regularly to the
said accidental injuries as per the advice of the Doctors.
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
71 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not proved her income at the
time of accident. She has clearly stated in her cross-
examination that, she has not taken treatment from any other
Hospital after discharge from Manipal Hospital. Even though
the P.W.5 has produced Ex.P.34 Case Sheet relating to the
Petitioner, he has not stated anything about the disability
sustained by the Petitioner due to the accidental injuries. He
has further clearly stated that, he has not treated the Petitioner.
Therefore, the permanent difficulties and disabilities due to the
accidental injuries stated by the P.W.3 cannot be believed and
accept. Therefore, the Petitioner is not entitled for any
compensation towards loss of future income, loss of earning
capacity, loss of amenities of life, loss of future prospectus,
future medical treatment and its expenses, arising out of the
permanent physical and functional disability.
63. As per Ex.P.15 Wound Certificate, Ex.P.16 Discharge
Summary and Ex.P.34 Case Sheet and evidence of P.W.3 and
P.W.5, the Petitioner had sustained one grievous injury and one
simple injury. The Petitioner was in the Manipal Hospital as an
inpatient from 06.06.2011 to 10.06.2011, i.e., for 5 days, as per
Ex.P.16 Discharge Summary and Ex.P.34 Case Sheet. Due to
the said injuries, the Petitioner could have definitely suffered a
lot of pain and agony during the course of treatment.
Considering the said aspects, it is just, proper and necessary to
award a sum of Rupees 30,000/- towards pain and suffering.
64. The Petitioner had suffered one grievous injury and
one simple injury and she was in the Hospital as an inpatient
for 5 days and she could not do any work at least for 2 months
and thereby, she deprived the income. Therefore, at the rate of
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
72 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
Rupees 5,000/- per month, a sum of Rupees 10,000/- (Rs.
5,000/- x 2), is awarded towards loss of income during the laid
up period.
65. The P.W.3 has stated that, she has incurred Rupees
65,933/- towards hospital receipts and around Rupees
10,000/- towards pharmacy Receipts and Rupees 20,000/-
towards Ambulance Charges for shifting her from Sira to
Bangalore and again from Bangalore to Bagepalli, etc., But, the
Petitioner has only produced Ex.P.18 Medical Bills 40 in
numbers, which is amounting of Rupees 83,529-94 and Ex.P.19
Hospital Bills 5 in numbers, which is amounting of Rupees
4,953/-. The Petitioner took treatment as an inpatient for 5
days in the Manipal Hospital to the said accidental injuries.
Considering the nature of injuries and the line of treatment
given to her, the possibility of spending the said amount for the
medicines cannot be doubted. Therefore, it is necessary to
award the said actual medical expenses of Rupees 83,529-94,
which covered under Ex.P.18 Medical bills and Rupees 4,953/-,
which covered under Ex.P.19 Hospital Bills, in total, Rupees
88,482-94 to the Petitioner, which is rounded off Rupees
88,483/-.
66. As the Petitioner was taken treatment as an
inpatient for 5 days, it is necessary to award a sum of Rupees
2,000/- towards conveyance charges, Rupees 2,000/- towards
attendant charges and Rupees 3,000/- towards food,
nourishment and diet charges, etc.,
67. In this way, the Petitioner is entitled for the following
amount of compensation:-
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
73 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
Sl.No. Compensation heads Compensation amount
1. Pain and sufferings Rs. 30,000-00
2. Loss of income during Rs. 10,000-00
laid up period
3. Actual medical Rs. 88,483-00
expenses
4. Conveyance Rs. 2,000-00
5. Attendant Charges Rs. 2,000-00
6. Food, Nourishment & Rs. 3,000-00
Diet charges
TOTAL Rs. 1,35,483-00
68. In all, the Petitioner is entitled for total
compensation of Rupees 1,35,483/- along with interest at the
rate of 6% per annum on the above said sum, from the date of
Petition till payment.
69. IN M.V.C.NO.7750/2011 :- The P.W.2 has stated
that, she was hale and healthy lady of 40 years of age and she
was doing Tailoring work, thereby, she was earning Rupees
6,000/- to Rupees 8,000/- per month, which she was
contributing for the maintenance and welfare of her family
members and family. She has further stated that, she has
referred to major Hospitals of Bangalore for further and follow-
up treatment and accordingly, she was shifted to NIMHANS
Hospital, Bangalore, wherein, she was treated and then, she
was shifted to Mangal's Nursing Home, Bangalore, wherein, she
was admitted as an inpatient on the same day, i.e., on
05.06.2011 and treated for the injuries and discharged on
13.06.2011, with an advise of undergoing follow-up treatment
and accordingly, she has followed the advise of the Doctor and
again she was admitted at Shankar Nursing Home, Bangalore.
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
74 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
She has further stated that, she has to incurred substantial
expenditure for fixation of artificial dentures after removal of the
loosened teeth from sockets and she has to spend around
Rupees 20,000/- towards fixation of artificial denture.
70. No doubt, based on Ex.P.10 Wound Certificate, this
Tribunal has already come to the conclusion that, in the said
road traffic accident, the Petitioner had sustained 3 grievous
injuries and 2 simple injuries, i.e., head injury, fracture of nasal
bones, loss of upper teeth, left block eye, CLW over right side lip
2 cm sutured upper lip, CLW over right lower lip whole
thickness. But, based on the above said oral version of P.W.2
and the contents of Ex.P.10 Wound Certificate only, it cannot be
believed and accept that, at the time of accident, the Petitioner
was doing a Tailoring work and he was earning Rupees 6,000/-
to Rupees 8,000/- per month and she was contributing her
earnings for the maintenance and welfare of her family and due
to the said accidental injuries, she has been suffering from
permanent physical and functional disability, which caused loss
of earning and her day today activities and as such, she is
entitled for the compensation under all the heads, as, except
Ex.P.10 Wound Certificate, the Petitioner has not produced the
Discharge Summary to show that, by admitting as an inpatient
from 05.06.2011 to 13.06.2011, she took treatment to the said
accidental injuries in NIMHANS Hospital and Mangala's Nursing
Home and Shankar Nursing Home. Further, the Petitioner has
not examined the Doctors, who have treated her immediately
after the accident. Even the Petitioner has not produced the
disability certificate issued by the competent Doctor. Further
she has clearly stated in her cross-examination that, she has
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
75 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
not admitted in NIMHANS Hospital and she has not taken
treatment in the said Hospital as an outpatient and she has not
produced the CT Scan Report and Discharge Summary issued
by the Mangala Hospital. From this, it is made crystal clear
that, except Ex.P.10 Wound Certificate, the Petitioner is not
having any supportive medical documents to consider the
difficulties sustained by her due to the accidental injuries.
Therefore, the said evidence stated by the P.W.2 in respect of
the permanent physical and functional disability, which caused
due to the accidental injuries, cannot be believed and accept.
Therefore, the Petitioner is not entitled for any compensation
towards loss of future income, loss of earning capacity, loss of
amenities of life, loss of future prospectus, future medical
treatment and its expenses, arising out of the permanent
physical and functional disability.
71. However, as per Ex.P.10 Wound Certificate and the
evidence of P.W.2, the Petitioner had sustained three grievous
injuries and two simple injuries in the said road traffic accident
and she had taken treatment at Mangala Nursing Home. Since,
in the said road traffic accident, the Petitioner had sustained
three grievous injuries and two simple injuries, this Tribunal
feels that, it is just, proper and necessary to award a global
compensation of Rupees 50,000/- to the Petitioner, which is
fare, reasonable and acceptable one. Hence, the Petitioner is
entitled for a global compensation of Rupees 50,000/-.
72. The P.W.2 has stated that, during the period of her
hospitalization, she has incurred Rupees 33,230/- towards
Hospital Bills, around Rupees 20,000/- towards pharmacy bills
and Rupees 4,000/- for shifting him from Sira to Manipal
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
76 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
Hospital, Bangalore in an Ambulance and Rupees 10,000/-
towards attendant expenses. But, the Petitioner has only
produced Ex.P.11 Hospital Bills 6 in numbers, which is
amounting of Rupees 33,230/- and Ex.P.12 Medical Bills 16 in
numbers, which is amounting of Rupees 7,450-17. Considering
the nature of the injuries and the line of treatment given to the
Petitioner, the possibility of spending the said amount for the
medicines cannot be doubted. Therefore, it is necessary to
award the said actual medical expenses of Rupees 33,230/-,
which covered under Ex.P.11 Hospital Bills and Rupees 7,450-
17, which covered under Ex.P.12 Medical Bills, in total, Rupees
40,680-17 to the Petitioner, which is rounded off Rupees
40,680/-.
73. In all, the Petitioner is entitled for Rupees 90,680/-
(Rupees 50,000/- + Rupees 40,680/-) as compensation along
with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the above said
sum from the date of Petition till payment.
74. IN M.V.C.NO.8146/2011 :- The P.W.4 has stated
that, his son was hale and healthy boy of 13 years of age. In
this regard, the Petitioner has not produced any documents.
But, the above said medical documents relating to the Petitioner
clearly disclosed that, at the time of accident, the Petitioner was
13 years old. Hence, the age of the Petitioner is considered as
13 years at the time of accident.
75. The P.W.4 has stated that, his son was studying in
7th Standard. He has further stated that, his son was completed
6th Standard and he has supposed to be admitted to 7th
Standard. In this regard also, the Petitioner has not produced
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
77 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
any academic documents. The P.W.4 in his cross-examination
has clearly stated that, he has not produced any documents to
show that, at the time of accident, his son was studying at 6th
Standard. Even though, the Petitioner has not produced any
academic documents, it is clear from the above said medical
documents as well as the oral version of P.W.4 that, at the time
of accident, the Petitioner has completed his 6th Standard.
76. The P.W.4 has stated that, her son was very active
and he was actively participating in sports and other cultural
activities and he was studying at Presidency Public School,
which is a Residential School at Sira of Tumkur District. He has
further stated that, inspite of the treatment, his son has not
recovered to the full extent, his eye sight is diminished, his
grasping is diminished, he has lost one academic year, his face
has been disfigured thereby his marriage prospectus is affected,
his future prospectus is also affected. He has further stated
that, now he is not in a position to move his eyes either
upwards or down wards and he has lost the vision of left eye
and his hand as well as his left leg is become weak, cannot
squat on the floor and he cannot stand without the support
after sitting and his memory power is reduced. He has further
stated that, he cannot read continuously and in the event, he
reads continuously, he will get head ache and the tears will
start coming from the eyes and he cannot see ground and in
case if he tries to see the ground, he will loose the balance, now
he is not in a position to his right hand, he cannot go to school
on his own independently and he needs the help of attendants
to go to school and to return from the school, now he is just
attending the school teachers and he is not in a position to write
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
78 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
the notes or to attend any home work and he is not in a position
to take the food on his own, since he cannot mix the rice with
the sambar in view of the shaking of his hand and he cannot lift
a tumbler of water to drink from the left hand, in view of the
shaking of left hand and the grip of the left hand lost totally and
he cannot take bath on his own and he needs an attend even to
attend his nature calls. He has further stated that, for about
one year, he has undergone regular physiotherapy at Hospital.
77. No doubt, based on Ex.P.21 Wound Certificate
Wound Certificate, this Tribunal has already come to the
conclusion that, in the said road traffic accident, the Petitioner
had sustained two grievous injuries, i.e., head injury with
fracture of bilateral frontal partial and temporal bone noted with
EDH an SAH and fracture right side both bones and as per the
contents of Ex.P.22 Discharge Summaries and Ex.P.23
Residential Report, Ex.P.24 Clinical Summary, Ex.P.25 Eye
Check Up Report and Ex.P.32 X-ray Films and Ex.P.35 Case
Sheet, by admitting as an inpatient from 09.07.2011 to
05.08.2011, i.e., for 28 days, in Manipal Hospital and from
31.10.2011 to 14.01.2012, i.e., for 76 days, in St. Martha's
Hospital, in total, 104 days, the Petitioner took treatment to the
said accidental injuries. But, based on the said material
documentary evidence, as well as oral version of P.W.4, it
cannot be believed and accept that, due to the accidental
injuries, the Petitioner is suffering from the difficulties, which
caused permanent disability, as, except the oral version of
P.W.4, the Petitioner has not produced any academic
documents to consider his educational qualification and his
talent and his participation in the sports and other cultural
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
79 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
activities. Further, the Petitioner has not examined the treated
Doctor and he has not produced the disability certificate issued
by the competent Doctor to consider the said difficulties and the
disabilities. Even the Petitioner has not produced any academic
documents to show that, he lost his education after the
accident, due to the accidental injuries. Even the Petitioner has
not produced any estimation or medical certificated to show
that, he requires future medical assistance regularly. In this
regard, the Petitioner in his cross-examination has clearly
stated that, at the time of accident, his son was studying at 6th
Standard. Even the Petitioner has not produced any medical
documents to show that, after discharge, he has been regularly
taking follow-up treatment. Though the P.W.4 in his cross-
examination has stated that, his son took follow-up treatment
once in two months regularly and now his son is at house and
he is not going to school as he lost his right eye sight, to
consider the same, no acceptable material evidence is
forthcoming on behalf of the Petitioner. The Petitioner has
clearly stated in his cross-examination that, he has not
produced any medical documents to show that, his son was
also took treatment to his eyes in the Eye Hospital. Even the
P.W.5 has clearly stated that, he has not treated the Petitioner
and he has only produced Ex.P.35 Case Sheet relating to the
Petitioner. Hence, the said evidence of P.W.4 in respect of the
difficulties sustained by the Petitioner due to the accidental
injuries, cannot be believed and accept. Therefore, the Petitioner
is not entitled for any compensation towards loss of future
income, loss of earning capacity, loss of amenities of life, loss of
future prospectus, future medical treatment and its expenses,
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
80 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
loss of marriage prospectus, arising out of the permanent
physical and functional disability.
78. While answering Issue No.1, this Tribunal has
already come to the conclusion that, in the said road traffic
accident, the Petitioner had sustained two grievous injuries and
by admitting as an inpatient from 31.10.2011 to 14.01.2012,
i.e., for 76 days, at St. Martha's Hospital and from 09.07.2011
to 05.08.2011, i.e., for 28 days at Manipal Hospital, in total 104
days, he took treatment to the said injuries.
79. As this Tribunal has come to the conclusion that,
the Petitioner was 13 years old at the time of accident. The
P.W.4 in his examination-in-chief has stated that, his son was a
brilliant student, studying in 7th standard, who was very active
and who was actively participating in sports and other cultural
activities and he was studying at Presidency Public School,
which is a residential school of Sira, wherein, he has competed
6th Standard and he was supposed to be admitted to 7th
Standard and as such, on that day, they were traveling from
Bagepalli to go to Sira for the purpose of admission. He has
further stated in his cross-examination that, he has not
produced any documents to show that, at the time of accident,
his son is studying at 9th Standard. From this, it is made crystal
clear that, the Petitioner was a student as on the date of
accident. Hence, the Petitioner is considered as a non-earning
member.
80. No doubt, as per the II Schedule, the income of the
non-earning member has to be considered at Rupees 15,000/-
per annum. But, it no way applicable to the present Petitioner
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
81 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
and present petition, as the Petitioner has failed to prove the
difficulties and disability, which have been suffering by him due
to the accidental injuries. Further, this Tribunal has already
come to the conclusion that, the said evidence of P.W.4
regarding disability and difficulties of the Petitioner due to the
accidental injuries cannot be believed and accepts.
81. As per Ex.P.21 Wound Certificate, Ex.P.22 Discharge
Summaries and Ex.P.35 Case Sheet and evidence of P.W.4 and
P.W.5, the Petitioner had sustained one grievous injury and one
simple injury. The Petitioner was in the Manipal Hospital as an
inpatient from 06.06.2011 to 10.06.2011, i.e., for 5 days, as per
Ex.P.16 Discharge Summary and Ex.P.34 Case Sheet. Due to
the said injuries, the Petitioner could have definitely suffered a
lot of pain and agony during the course of treatment.
Considering the said aspects, it is just, proper and necessary to
award a sum of Rupees 50,000/- towards pain and suffering.
82. The P.W.4 has stated that, during the period of her
hospitalisation, he has spent around Rupees 3,00,000/-towards
Hospital Bills, around Rupees 1,00,000/- towards Ambulance
and Car hire charges for shifting him from Bagepalli to
Bangalore and back for follow-up treatment at a cost of around
Rupees 3,500/- towards Car hire and he used to incur around
Rupees 500/- towards Tiffin and food on that day. He has
further stated that, in all, he was admitted as an inpatient for a
period of more than about 4 months at different Hospitals of
Bangalore and during the said period of stay, two persons used
to attend him at the Hospital, by then, he was incurring and
spending an amount not less than Rupees 250/- to Rupees
300/- per day towards purchase of Tiffin and food, etc., He has
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
82 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
further stated that, he took more than one year for recovery
from the injuries and during that entire period, he has lost his
income not less than Rupees 10,000/- per month. He has
further stated that, for about one year, he has undergone
regular physiotherapy at Hospital and during that period, he
was compelled to stay at Bangalore by taking rented house by
paying rent of Rupees 5,000/- per month and he was incurring
another Rupees 6,000/- towards preparation of food, etc., and
also he was incurring an expenditure of not less than
Rupees150/- per day towards Auto Rickshaw fare from Hospital
to his residence at Bangalore.
83. But, the Petitioner has only produced Ex.P.26
Inpatient Bills, which is amounting of Rupees 4,79,320/-,
Ex.P.27 Follow-up Receipts 17 in numbers, which is amounting
of Rupees 13,530/-, Ex.P.28 Advance Receipts 5 in numbers,
which is amounting of Rupees 6,816/-, Ex.P.29 Inpatient
Interim Running Bill, Ex.P.30 OCS Statement of Bill for patient,
which is amounting of Rupees 1,55,794/- and Ex.P.31
Pharmacy Bills, 248 in numbers, which is amounting of Rupees
1,94,542-78. The P.W.1 in his cross-examination has clearly
stated that, the advance amount of Rupees 99,000/- is included
in the Main Bill and Ex.P.26 Inpatient Bills and Ex.P.31
Pharmacy Bills are related to actual medical expenses, which
incurred by him for treatment to his son and the amount shown
in Ex.P.26 and Ex.P.31 is only entitled by his son and not other
bills shown in Ex.P.27 to Ex.P.30. Hence, only the amount
covered under Ex.P.26 Inpatient Bills amounting of Rupees
4,79,320/- and Ex.P.31 Pharmacy Bills 248 in numbers,
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
83 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
amounting of Rupees 1,94,542-78, in total, Rupees 6,73,862-
78, can be taken into for consideration.
84. Considering the nature of the injuries and the line of
treatment given to the Petitioner, the possibility of spending the
said amount for the medicines cannot be doubted. Therefore, it
is necessary to award the said actual medical expenses, which
covered under Ex.P.26 Inpatient Bills amounting of Rupees
4,79,320/- and Ex.P.31 Pharmacy Bills 248 in numbers,
amounting of Rupees 1,94,542-78, in total, Rupees 6,73,862-78
(Rupees 4,79,320/- + 1,94,542-78), which is rounded of Rupees
6,73,863/-.
85. Due to the accidental injuries, the Petitioner could
not be in a position to attend his School at least for six months.
Hence, it is just, proper and necessary to award a sum of
Rupees 25,000/- towards loss of education.
86. By considering the age of the Petitioner, nature of
injury, line of treatment and period of treatment in the Hospital
by admitting as an inpatient, this Tribunal feels that, it is just,
proper and necessary to award a sum of Rupees 5,000/-
towards attendant charges, Rupees 25000/- towards
conveyance expenses and Rupees 10,000/- towards food,
nourishment and diet etc.,
87. In this way, the Petitioner is entitled for the following
amount of compensation:-
Compensation
Sl.No. Compensation heads
amount
1. Medical expenses Rs. 6,73,863-00
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
84 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
2. Pain and sufferings Rs. 50,000-00
3. Loss of education Rs. 25,000-00
4. Attendant Charges Rs. 5,000-00
5. Conveyance Rs. 5,000-00
6. Food, Nourishment & Rs. 10,000-00
Diet charges
TOTAL Rs. 7,68,863-00
88. In all, the Petitioner is entitled for total
compensation of Rupees 7,68,863/- along with interest at the
rate of 6% per annum on the above said sum from the date of
petition till payment.
89. While answering Issue No.1 in all the cases, this
Tribunal has already come to the conclusion that, both the
offending Maruthi Omini Car bearing Registration No.KA-01-P-
1753 as well as the offending Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-
05-5643 and its drivers are very much involved in the said road
traffic accident, wherein, all the Petitioners were sustained
injuries, who were traveling in the said offending Maruthi Omini
Car and there is a contributory negligence of 80% on the part of
the driver of the offending Lorry and 20% on the part of the
driver of the offending Maruthi Omini Car.
90. All the Petitioners in the cause title of the petitions
have clearly mentioned that, the Respondent No.1 is a R.C.
Holder, the Respondent No.2 is an insurer of the offending Lorry
bearing Registration No.KA-05-5643 and its policy
No.072281/31/10/02/00006138, valid from 26.01.2011 to
25.01.2012 and the Respondent No.3 is a R.C. Holder of the Car
bearing Registration No.KA-03-P-1753. The R.W.3, who is a
Assistant Manager of the Respondent No.2 has stated that, the
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
85 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
Respondent No.1 had issued a liability only policy vide
No.072281/31/10/02/00006138 in favour of the first
Respondent in respect of the Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-
05-5643 valid from 26.01.2011 to 25.01.2012. The Respondent
No.2 has also produced Ex.R.2 Insurance Policy. On perusal of
the said material evidence available on record, it clearly goes to
show that, at the time of accident, the Respondent No.1 was a
R.C. Owner and the Respondent No.2 was an insurer of the
offending Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-05-5643 and its
Insurance Policy was valid, which covers the date of accident
and the Respondent No.3 is a R.C. Owner of the offending Car
bearing Registration No.KA-03-P-1753. To deny or to discard
the same, nothing is available on record on behalf of the
Respondents No.1 and 3. The P.W.1 in his cross-examination
has clearly stated that, at the time of accident, the offending
Car bearing Registration No.KA-03-P-1753 was not having a
valid Insurance Policy. Even in Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.3 Charge sheet
it is mentioned that, at the time of accident, the Car was not
having a valid Insurance Policy and as such, the Investigating
Officer has filed a charge sheet for the offence punishable under
Section 196 of IMV Act. Even there is no allegation leveled as
against the driver of both offending Car and offending Lorry in
Ex.P.7 and Ex.R.3 Charge Sheet that, at the time of accident,
they had not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive
such class of vehicles. The violation of the terms and conditions
of Ex.R.2 Insurance Policy by the Respondent No.1 is not proved
by the Respondent No.2. Under such circumstances, all the
Respondents No.1 to 3 are liable to pay the above said
compensation and interest to the Petitioners in all the cases.
Since, the Respondent No.2 is an insurer, it shall indemnify the
M.V.C.NO.7001/11
86 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011
(SCCH-7)
Respondent No.1. Hence, the Respondent No.2 is liable to pay
the compensation and interest to all the Petitioners to an extent
of 80% and the Respondent No.3 is liable to pay the
compensation and interest to an extent of 20%. In view of the
above said reasons and findings on Issues, the principles
enunciated in the decisions cited by the Learned Counsel
appearing for the Petitioner are applicable to some extent to the
present facts and circumstances of the case on hand. Hence,
Issue No.2 in all the cases, are answered accordingly.
91. ISSUE NO.3 IN ALL THE CASES :- For the
aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following,
ORDER
The petitions filed by the Petitioners in M.V.C.No.7001/2011, M.V.C.No.7749/2011, M.V.C.No.7750/2011 and M.V.C.No.8146/2011 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 R/w amended Act of 1994, are hereby partly allowed with costs.
The Petitioner in M.V.C.No.7001/2011 is entitled for compensation of Rupees 51,257/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of payment from the Respondents No.2 and 3 in the ratio of 80:20 respectively.
The Petitioner in M.V.C.No.7749/2011 is entitled for compensation of Rupees 88,483/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. M.V.C.NO.7001/11 87 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011 (SCCH-7) from the date of the petition till the date of payment, from the Respondents No.2 and 3 in the ratio of 80:20 respectively.
The Petitioner in M.V.C.No.7750/2011 is entitled for compensation of Rupees 90,680/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of payment, from the Respondents No.2 and 3 in the ratio of 80:20 respectively.
The Petitioner in M.V.C.No.8146/2011 is entitled for compensation of Rupees 7,68,863/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of payment, from the Respondents No.2 and 3 in the ratio of 80:20 respectively.
The Respondents No.2 and 3 shall deposit the said compensation and interest in this Tribunal in the ratio of 80:20 respectively, within one month from the date of this Order, in all the cases.
In the event of deposit of compensation and interest in all the cases, entire amount relating to Petitioners in M.V.C.No.7001/2011, M.V.C.No.7749/2011 and M.V.C.No.7750/2011 shall be released in their favour, respectively and 90% share of the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.8146/2011 shall be released in favour of his guardian, M.V.C.NO.7001/11 88 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011 (SCCH-7) through account payee cheques, on proper identification.
The remaining share of 10% relating to the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.8146/2011 shall be kept in F.D. in the name of the Petitioner in any nationaziled Bank of the choice of his guardian, till he attains the age of majority.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rupees 1,000/- in each case.
Original copy of the Judgment shall be kept in M.V.C.No.7001/2011 and the copy of the same shall be kept in M.V.C.No.7749/2011, M.V.C.No.7750/2011 and M.V.C.No.8146/2011.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then, pronounced by me in the open Court on this, the 21st day of August, 2015.) (INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR) IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE PETITIONERS :-
P.W.1 : Sri.J.Murali Krishna M.V.C.NO.7001/11 89 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011 (SCCH-7) P.W.2 : Smt.Mamatha P.W.3 : Sridevi P.W.4 : J.Murali Krishna P.W.5 : Dr.Pagadal Narayan Prakash
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED BY THE PETITIONERS :-
Ex.P.1 : True copy of FIR
Ex.P.2 : True copy of Complaint
Ex.P.3 : True copy of Spot Panchanama
Ex.P.4 : True copy of Wound Certificate
Ex.P.5 : True copy of MVI Report
Ex.P.6 : Medical bills (13 in nos.)
Ex.P.7 : Charge Sheet
Ex.P.8 : Substance of Accusation
Ex.P.9 : Order Sheet relating to
C.C.No.1349/2011
Ex.P.10 : Wound Certificate Ex.P.11 : Hospital Bills (6 in nos.) Ex.P.12 : Medical Bills (16 in nos.) Ex.P.13 : Medical Bills (14 in nos.) Ex.P.14 : X-ray films (3 in nos.) Ex.P.15 : Certified copy of Wound Certificate Ex.P.16 : Discharge Summary Ex.P.17 : Radiological Report Ex.P.18 : Medical Bills (40 in nos.) Ex.P.19 : Hospital Bills (5 in nos.) Ex.P.20 : X-ray Films (3 in nos.) Ex.P.21 : Certified copy of Wound Certificate Ex.P.22 : Discharge Summaries (2 in nos.) Ex.P.23 : Resident's Report Ex.P.24 : Clinical Summary Ex.P.25 : Eye Check Report Ex.P.26 : Inpatient Bills Ex.P.27 : Follow-up Receipts (17 in nos.) Ex.P.28 : Advance Receipts (5 in nos.) Ex.P.29 : Inpatient Interim Running Bills Ex.P.30 : OCS Statement of Bill for patient Ex.P.31 : Pharmacy Bills (248 in nos.) Ex.P.32 : X-ray Film Ex.P.33 : Case Sheet relating to Murali Krishna Ex.P.34 : Case Sheet relating to Sridevi M.V.C.NO.7001/11 90 C/w ,7749,7750 and 8146/2011 (SCCH-7) Ex.P.35 : Case Sheet relating to Yashwanth
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE RESPONDENTS :-
R.W.1 : Ramesh Babu.B.S.
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED BY THE RESPONDENTS :-
Ex.R.1 : Authorization Letter dated 29.04.2015 Ex.R.2 : True Copy of Insurance Policy Ex.R.3 : True Copy of Charge Sheet (INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR) IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.