Bangalore District Court
Smt.Nethravathi.N.S vs Manju .M.D on 11 January, 2016
BEFORE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE CITY. SCCH-14
PRESENT: BASAVARAJ CHENGTI., B.Com.,LL.B.,(spl)
Member, MACT,
XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes,
BANGALORE.
MVC No.2123/2014
Dated this the 11th day of January 2016
Petitioner/s : Smt.Nethravathi.N.S,
W/o Siddesh,
Aged about 32 years,
Residing at No.722,
Dodda Thoguru,
Bangalore South,
Pin 560100
V/s (By pleader Sri SGA)
Respondent/s 1.Manju .M.D.
S/o Doddabasave Gowda,
C/o Ramaiah Building,
Vinayakanagara, Thirupalya Road,
Hebbagodi Village,
Electronic City Post,
Bangalore-560100
And also at
No.144/1, Vinayakanagara
Near BES School, Thirupalya Road,
Hebbagodi, Bangalore.
2.The Managing Director,
BMTC Depot, Bangalore Central Office,
KH Road, Shanthinagar,
Bangalore-560027
(R1-Exparte,
R2- By pleader Sri MD)
SCCH-14 2 MVC No.2123/2015
JUDGMENT
This petition is filed by the petitioner U/s 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in a road traffic accident.
2. Brief averments of the petition are as under:
On 26.01.2015 at about 04.30 P.M., the petitioner was pedestrian along with her friend on the extreme left side on NH-7 Hosur road and after carefully observing the vehicle movement, she was crossing the said road near BETL toll gate, Electronic city, Bangalore from east to west, at that time, suddenly the motorcycle bearing No.KA-51-EC-4654 ridden by its rider from Hebbagodi towards Konappanagrahara in a rash and negligent manner, endangering human life, without observing any of the traffic rules and regulations came and dashed against the petitioner. Due to it, the petitioner fell down and at that time, the BMTC bus bearing No.KA-57-F-1023 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, endangering to human life, without observing any of the traffic rules and regulations came and the wheel of the said bus ran over on the right leg of the petitioner. Due to the accident, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately, she was taken to Blossom Multi Specialty Hospital, Bangalore wherein she took first aid treatment and thereafter, she was referred to ESI Hospital, wherein she was admitted as an inpatient from 27.01.2015 to 05.03.2015. She sustained fracture of right thigh knee and leg, injury of right hand, Scalp, facial injury and other grievous injuries all over the body. She underwent surgery i.e., trans femoral amputation and multiple debridement. Thereafter, she was referred to MS.Ramaiah Hospital, wherein also she took treatment as SCCH-14 3 MVC No.2123/2015 inpatient from 05.03.2015 to 15.05.2015 and underwent debridement with regular dressing. After necessary treatment, she was discharged with an advise for follow up treatment, restricted fracture movements, not to involve in any strenuous activities and for complete bed rest. She has spent Rs.3,00,000/- towards medical, nourishment, conveyance and other incidental charges. The petitioner was aged 32 years and she was working as Tailor at Shahi Exports Pvt Ltd, Hosur Road, Bangalore and earning a sum of Rs.7,507/- pm., Due to the accident, she is getting unbearable pain often. She underwent amputation of right leg. She is completely bed ridden. She can not walk, stand, sit squat on the floor, can not lift or carry weight, since the injuries have caused permanent disability. The doctors have advised to wear artificial leg which costs Rs.2,63,730/-. Electronic City Traffic police have registered Cr.No.18/2015 against the rider of motorcycle bearing No.KA-51-EC-4654 and driver of BMTC bus bearing No.KA-57-F-1023 for the offences punishable U/Sec.279 and 338 of IPC. The respondents are the owner of the said motorcycle and bus and are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Hence, the petitioner has sought for awarding compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- with cost and interest.
3. In pursuance of the notice, the respondent no.2 has appeared before the Court through his counsel and filed statement of objections denying the averments of the petition as false. He has contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and the accident was due to negligence of the petitioner and the rider of motorcycle, that he has paid Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner as interium compensation, that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is baseless, speculative, imaginary and exorbitant. He has further contended that the SCCH-14 4 MVC No.2123/2015 driver of the bus was driving is vehicle was slowly, cautiously and by observing traffic rules and regulations, that the petitioner has sustained injuries due to accident caused by the rider of motorcycle and for which the driver of the bus was not responsible. Hence, he has sought for dismissal of the petition with cost. The respondent No.1 was not served with notice in the ordinary course. Notice was directed to him by substitute method, i.e., by paper publication. In spite of it, the respondent No.1 remained absent and hence, he is placed Exparte.
4. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues were framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that she sustained grievious injuries in the nature of permanent disablement on 26.01.2015 at about 04.30 p.m., on NH-7 Hosur Road, Near BETL Toll gate, Electronic city, Bangalore, in an accident arising due to rash and negligent driving of driver of BMTC bus bearing No.KA- 57-F-1023?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
3. What Order or Award?
5. During the evidence, the petitioner has examined herself as PW.1 and examined three witnesses as PW.2 to 4. She has got marked documents as Ex.P1 to 25. The respondent no.2 has examined his driver as RW-1.
6. Heard the arguments. The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon following rulings :
SCCH-14 5 MVC No.2123/20151.2015 ACJ 1441(SC) (Khenyei Vs NIACL) 2.2001 (1)Kar.L.J.411(DB) (R.Venkatesh Vs P.Saravanan and ors) I have gone through the said rulings and perused the records.
7. My findings on the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1 : In affirmative.
Issue No.2 : In affirmative. For Rs.14,33,000/-
the respondent no.1 and 2.
Issue No.3 : As per final order :
for the following:
REASONS
8. ISSUE NO.1: The respondent No.1 is exparte. The petitioner and the respondent No.2 are represented by their respective counsel. PW-1 to 4 have deposed for the petitioner, whereas RW-1 has given evidence for the respondent No.2. Ex.P1 to 25 are got marked on behalf of the petitioner. Among the said documents, Ex.P19 to 22 are produced by PW-2 Hemavathi from ESI hospital, Rajajinagar, Bangalore, Ex.P23 and 24 are produced by PW-3 Dr.S.Ramachandra from Victoria hospital, Bangalore and Ex.P25 is produced by PW-4 D'Souza Oliver Royston. The respondent No.2 has not produced any document on his behalf.
9. The counsel for the petitioner has argued that the accident has occurred due to negligence of the respondent No.1 and of the driver of BMTC bus and evidence of PW-1 coupled with police records at Ex.P1 to 6 establish the same, that the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries to her right leg resulting in above knee amputation, that the petitioner has sustained injury to right hand, scalp, face and other parts of body and evidence of PW-1 and 3 coupled with medical records at Ex.P7, 8, 20 to 24 SCCH-14 6 MVC No.2123/2015 prove the same. He has further argued that the petitioner did not sustain grievous injuries due to accident caused by motorcyclist i.e., the respondent No.1 and it is the negligence of RW-1 which caused crush injury to her right leg resulting in amputation, that chargesheet is filed by the police against the respondent No.1 and RW-1, that the said chargesheet is not challenged and evidence of RW-1 is not sufficient to prove the defence and to disprove the case of the petitioner. Hence, he has sought for answering the issue in affirmative. He has further sought for fixing higher degree of negligence on the part of RW-1.
10. The counsel for the respondent No.2 has argued that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of bus who has deposed before the court regarding his innocence, that there is nothing on record to disbelieve the same, that the accident has occurred due to negligence of the petitioner and of the respondent No.1 as there was no pedestrian crossing in the place of accident, that if the motorcyclist had not dashed the petitioner, she would not have sustained injuries, that she sustained crush injury due to accident caused by the respondent No.1 and since, the motorcycle was not having insurance, the petitioner is trying to put entire burden upon the driver of bus for getting compensation from the respondent No.2. Hence, he has sought for answering the issue in negative or else for fixing the liability on the respondent No.1.
11. PW-1 Netharavathi has deposed as per the averments of the petition. PW-3 Dr.S.Ramachandra has supported the version of PW-1 as to injury and effect of injury. Evidence of PW-2 and 4 is not helpful to decide this issue. RW-1 Girisha has stated as per the defence of the respondent No.2, but his evidence is uncorroborated, whereas the evidence of PW-1 is SCCH-14 7 MVC No.2123/2015 corroborated by the copies of FIR, charge sheet, sketch, panchanama, IMV report, police intimation and MLC extract at Ex.P1 to 6 and 21 as to negligence of the respondent No.1 and of RW-1 for the occurrence of the accident. Evidence of PW-1 and 3 is corroborated by the contents wound certificate, discharge summary, OPD book, case sheet and X-rays at Ex.P7, 8, 20, 22 to 24 as to injury caused to the petitioner in the accident.
12. The counsel for the respondent No.2 has given specific suggestions to PW-1 and 3 during cross-examination. Portions of their cross-examination are as under;
PW-1:
" It is true to suggest that when I was crossing the road a motorcyclist came and dashed me and I fell down due to impact.
"It is false to suggest that I sustained injury due to negligence of rider of motorcycle and myself and the bus was driven in cautious manner".
"It is false to suggest that I can live with stretchers".
"It is false to suggest that I was sick at the time of accident and I was unable to take care while cross the road and the accident has occurred due to my negligence".
PW-3:
"It is false to suggest that I have exaggerated the disability and I have given her disability of 90% only to help her. Since schedule injury, it can not be divided by 3 for getting whole body disability".
"Since, I am orthopedic surgeon I know the cost of artificial limb".
13. The above suggestions are implied admissions of the respondent No.2 that the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries in the SCCH-14 8 MVC No.2123/2015 accident resulting in amputation of her right leg above knee. But he has contended that the accident was due to negligence of the petitioner and of the respondent No.1 and there was no negligence on the part of RW-1. Oral evidence of RW-1 regarding manner of accident is self serving and is contradictory to the police records. Hence, I disbelieve his evidence as to cause for the accident.
14. Evidence of PW-1 and 2 and contents of Ex.P7, 8, 20, 22 to 24 disclose that the petitioner has sustained crush injury over right thigh, right hand injury over scalp, multiple abrasion all over body, Degloving injury of right thigh with trans femoral amputation and multiple debridement.
15. The petitioner has taken treatment in Blossom Multi Specialty Hospital, in ESI hospital and in M.S.Ramaiah hospital from 27.01.2015 to 15.05.2015.
16. Police records at Ex.P1 to 6 reveal that FIR was promptly lodged and the complainant was an eyewitness to the accident. The police have investigated the matter and filed charge sheet against the respondent No.1 and RW-1 for the offences punishable U/s 279 and 338 of IPC R/w section 196 of M.V.Act. There is nothing on record to believe that the charge sheet is defective or collusive. The accident is described in complaint as under;
¢£ÁAPÀB26.01.2015 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀAeÉ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 04.30 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß ¸ÉßûvÉAiÀiÁzÀ £ÉÃvÁæªÀw 30 ªÀµÀð E§âgÀÄ ªÀģɬÄAzÀ J¯ÉPÁÖ ç¤Pï ¹n §½¬ÄgÀĪÀ r ªÀiÁmïðUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀ®Ä ºÉƸÀgÀÄ gÀ¸AÉÛ iÀÄ°è §¹î£° À Ý §AzÀÄ E½zÀÄ r ªÉÆÃlgï PÀqÉUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀ®Ä gÁ¶Ö Ãç AiÀÄ ºÉzÁÝj- 7 ºÉƸÀÆgÀÄ gÀ¸ÉÛ, J¯ÉPÁÖ ç¤Pï ¹n BETL mÉÆïï UÉÃmï ºÀwgÛ À ¥ÀǪÀð¢AzÀ ¥À²ÑªÀiÁâªÀÄÄRªÁV £ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ gÀ¸ÉÛ zÁlÄwÛgÀĪÀÁUÀ CzÉà gÀ¸AÉÛ iÀÄ°è ºÉ§âUÉÆÃr PÀqɬÄAzÀ PÉÆ£À¥Àà£À CUÀæºÁgÀ PÀqÉUÉ CwªÉÃUÀªÁV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CeÁUÀgÀÆPÀwɬÄAzÀ ZÁ®£É ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀAvÀºÀ MAzÀÄ SCCH-14 9 MVC No.2123/2015 ªÉÆÃmÁgÀÄ ¸ÉåP¯ À ï £ÀA. KA-51-EC-4654 ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ ¸ÀªÁgÀ gÀ¸ÉÛ zÁlÄwÛzÀÝ £ÉÃvÁæªÀw gÀªÀjUÉ KPÁJQà rQÌ ºÉÆqÉzÀ£ÄÀ . ¥ÀjuÁªÀĪÁV £ÉÃvÁæªÀwgÀªgÀ ÀÄ gÀ¸AÉÛ iÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É ©zÁÝUÀ CzÉà ªÀiÁUÀðªÁV ªÉÃUÀªÁV ZÁ®£ÉAiÀÄ°èzÀ MAzÀÄ BMTC §¸ï £ÀA. KA-57-F-1023 ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ ZÁ®PÀ ¤®ðPÀë åvɬÄAzÀ ªÁºÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤°è¸®À Ä ¸ÁzÀsåvɬÄzÀgÝ ÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ ¤°è¸ÀzÃÉ CeÁUÀgÀÄPÀvɬÄAzÀ gÀ¸AÉÛ iÀÄ°è §¢zÀÝ £ÉÃvÁæªÀwgÀªgÀ À §®UÁ°£À ªÉÄÃ¯É §¹ì£À ZÀPÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ºÀj¹gÀÄvÁÛ£.É EzÀgÀ ¥ÀjtÁªÀĪÁV £ÉÃvÁæªÀwgÀªgÀ À §®UÁ®Ä ¸ÀA¥ÀÇtðªÁV dfÓºÉÆÃUÀzÀÄÝ vÀ°UÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ ¥ÀmÁÖVgÀÄvÀÛz.É
17. Sketch at Ex.P3 discloses that the accident has occurred on the middle of service road, that both motorcycle and bus have deviated direction before the accident. PW-1 has promptly admitted that she was crossing the road at the time of accident, that there was no zebra crossing. But, she has stated that pedestrians were crossing the road there. The complainant was with the petitioner at that time. Hence, it can be said that there were other persons who were crossing the road in the place of accident. There is nothing on record to believe that the petitioner was also negligent and contributed to the accident. Uncorroborated testimony of RW-1 does not inspire the confidence of the court. Evidence of PW-1 is trustworthy and it is corroborated by the contents of police records. MLC extract at Ex.P21 reveals that there was no delay in admitting the petitioner to hospital and history of her injury was mentioned as road traffic accident. Intimation was sent to police without delay. Looking to the description as to manner of accident, it can be said that the respondent No.1 rode his motorcycle in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner who fell on the road, that RW-1 was driving his bus in high speed, in rash and negligent manner and he did not control his vehicle resulting in running over of wheel of the bus on the leg of the petitioner causing crush injury to her. Brake system of both the vehicles was in order. The respondent No.1 and RW-1 could have avoided the accident by SCCH-14 10 MVC No.2123/2015 applying brakes. Grievous injuries caused to the petitioner due to negligence of the driver of bus. I am of the opinion that the accident has occurred due to composite negligence of the respondent No.1 and of driver of the bus. However, the degree of negligence of the driver of bus is higher than that of the respondent No.1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to assess the degree of negligence on the part of the driver of the bus @ 70% and of the respondent No.1 @ 30%. The petitioner has succeeded to prove the issue by producing oral and documentary evidence. Evidence of RW-1 is not sufficient to disprove the case of the petitioner. Hence, I answer the issue in affirmative.
18. ISSUE NO.2: Evidence of PW-1 is corroborated by the contents of Adhaar card at Ex.P16 as to age. The date of birth of the petitioner is shown as 06.04.1984. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the same. Hence, it can be said that the petitioner was aged 30 years on the date of accident. In view of admission of the petitioner, it can be said that she was aged more than 30 years. Appropriate multiplier is 16. Evidence of PW-1 is corroborated by the evidence of PW-4 D'Souza Oliver Royston and contents of Ex.P9 to 14 as to occupation and income. There is nothing in the evidence of PW-1 and 4 to disbelieve the same. Police records speak about occupation of the petitioner as tailor. Salary of the petitioner was being credited to her bank account. There was variation in the amount of salary depending upon number of working days, but average salary of the petitioner was Rs.7,000/- pm, Hence, I hold that the petitioner was working as a tailor in Shahi Exports Pvt Ltd, Hosur Road, Bangalore and was drawing a salary of Rs.7,000/- pm., Her annual salary comes to Rs.84,000/-.
SCCH-14 11 MVC No.2123/201519. Evidence of PW-1 and 3 and contents of Ex.P7, 8, 20, 22 to 24 reveal that the petitioner has sustained following injuries;
1.Crush injury over right thigh, right hand injury over scalp, multiple abrasion all over body.
2. Degloving injury of right thigh with trans femoral amputation and multiple debridement.
The petitioner underwent following course in the hospital;
1. Right hip disarticulation,
2. Wound debridement
20. The petitioner was in the hospital for about 4 months. Her right leg is amputated above knee. She was under follow up treatment and bed rest for about 4 months after discharge. During the said period, she might have spent amount for nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges apart from incurring medical expenses. She has produced medical bills amounting to Rs.18,354/- and prescriptions which are at Ex.P17 and 18. Final bills are not produced. PW-1 has admitted that her medical expenses are reimbursed by ESI Corporation. The respondent No.2 has contended that amount of medical bills at Ex.P17 are also paid by ESI Corporation. But, there is nothing to believe the same as the petitioner has produced original bills before court. She has lost income after the accident. She is entitled for 11 months salary towards loss of income during laid up period. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.75,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.20,000/- towards nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges, Rs.77,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period.
21. The petitioner has lost her left leg above knee. She is permanently disabled. Her disability is assessed by PW-3 @ 90%. The SCCH-14 12 MVC No.2123/2015 injury caused to the petitioner has resulted in amputation of right leg above knee. It is a scheduled injury. As per scheduled II of E.C.Act, loss of earning for amputation above knee is 90%. Hon'ble High Court has held in ruling reported in 2001 (1) KLJ 411 as under;
" Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 168 - Personal injury-assessment of compensation in case of -assessment must be made on basis of effect of injury and of resultant disablement on person's capacity to earn-where claimant has suffered amputation of left leg below knee leval and has become totally incapacitated to continue manual work of loader, which he was dong, disablement is to be taken as total, even though physical disablement is not 100%".
22. The petitioner is claiming compensation for prosthesis also. She has produced quotation of prosthesis which is at Ex.P15. Nothing is asked regarding quotation. The petitioner was a tailor. The disability is physical as well as functional resulting in loss of earning capacity. The counsel for the petitioner has argued that as per above ruling, the disability of the petitioner is 100% as she can not do her occupation, that even after use of prosthesis, she can not work as tailor as ankle movement is important for tailors which can not be done by prosthesis. The counsel for the respondent No.2 has argued that the petitioner can use electric machine in which there is no use of leg. Looking to the rival contentions, condition of the petitioner, I am of the opinion that by using prosthesis, the petitioner can do day to day activities and do her occupation with difficulty and restrictions, I am inclined to assess extent of permanent disability the petitioner @ 70%. She lost her earning capacity to the extent of disability. Loss of her future income would be Rs.84000X16X70%=Rs.9,40,800/- which can be rounded to Rs.9,41,000/-.
SCCH-14 13 MVC No.2123/201523. The petitioner has several difficulties which may persist in future. PW-3 supports the version of PW-1 as to such difficulties. The petitioner has lost amenities of life. She requires to go for artificial limb. PW-3 has deposed about cost of prosthesis which remained uncorroborated. However, looking to the age, occupation and status of the petitioner, I am inclined to award a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- towards prosthesis and Rs.50,000/- towards disability and Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for just and reasonable compensation as under:
1 Pain and sufferings Rs. 75,000/- 2 Medical expenses Rs. 20,000/-
3 Nourishment, conveyance and Rs. 20,000/-
attendant charges 4 Loss of income during laid up Rs. 77,000/-
period 5 Loss of future income Rs.9,41,000/-
6 Cost of Prosthesis Rs.2,00,000/- 7 Disability Rs. 50,000/-
8 Loss of amenities Rs. 50,000/-
Total Rs.14,33,000/-
The petitioner is further entitled for interest @9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment.
24. The respondents are the owner of motorcycle and of BMTC bus. The accident has occurred due to composite negligence of the respondent No.1 and of the driver of the bus. Degree of their negligence is assessed @ 30:70. The respondents have to pay compensation and interest in the said ratio. 30% of Rs.14,33,000/- is Rs.4,29,900/- which can be rounded to Rs.4,30,000/-. The respondent No.1 is liable to pay Rs.4,30,000/- with proportionate interest. The respondent No.2 is liable SCCH-14 14 MVC No.2123/2015 to pay Rs.10,03,000/- with proportionate interest. The respondents have to deposit the said amount with interest before the court. However, the petitioner is at liberty to recover entire amount from any of the respondents as it is a case of composite negligence. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in ruling reported in 2015 ACJ 1441 as under;
(i) "in the case of composite negligence, plaintiff/ claimant is entitled to sue both or any one of the joint to tortfeasors and to recover the entire compensation as liability of joint tortfeasors is joint and several".
(ii)"In the case of composite negligence, apportionment of compensation between two tortfeasors vis-à-vis the plaintiff/claimant is not permissible. He can recover at his option whole damages from any of them".
(iii) "In case all the joint tortfeasors have been impleaded and evidence is sufficient, it is open to the court/tribunal to determine inter se extent of composite negligence of the drivers. However, determination of the extent of negligence between the joint tortfeasors is only for the purpose of their inter se liability so that one may recover the sum from the other after making whole of payment to the plaintiff/claimant to the extent it has satisfied the liability of the other, In case both of them have been impleaded and the apportionment/extent of their negligence has been determined by the court/Tribunal in main case, one joint tortfeasors can recover the amount from the other in the execution proceedings".
The said ruling is applicable to this case. Hence, I answer the issue as above.
25. ISSUE NO.3: In view of above discussion and findings, I proceed to pass following:
SCCH-14 15 MVC No.2123/2015ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby allowed with costs.
The petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.14,33,000/-with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay to the petitioner a compensation of Rs.14,33,000/- with interest. In view of composite negligence of the respondent No.1 and the driver of the respondent No.2, the respondent No.1 is directed to deposit Rs.4,30,000/- with proportionate interest and the respondent No.2 is directed to deposit Rs.10,03,000/- with proportionate interest before the court within one month from the date of award.
Since, it is a case of composite negligence, the petitioner is at liberty to recover entire compensation amount and interest from any of the respondents. The respondent who satisfies the award in full, is at liberty to proceed against the other to recover his share of amount.
After deposit, Rs.5,00,000/- shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner in any nationalized, scheduled or co- operative bank for a period of 3 years. Balance amount with interest shall be released in favour of the petitioner through account payee cheque with proper identification.SCCH-14 16 MVC No.2123/2015
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer and then corrected by me and pronounced in the open court, on this the 11th day of January 2016.) (Basavaraj Chengti) XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & MACT, Bangalore.SCCH-14 17 MVC No.2123/2015
ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS:
PW.1 Nethravathi PW.2 M.Hemavathi PW.3 Dr.S.Ramachandra PW.4 D'Souza Oliver Royston Respondent' s RW-1 Y.P.Girisha Ex.P1 - Copy of FIR with complaint E.xP2 - Copy of Charge Sheet Ex.P3 - Copy of Sketch Ex.P4 - Copy of Panchanama Ex.P5 - Copy of IMV report Ex.P6 - Copy of Police Intimation. Ex.P7 - Copy of Wound Certificate Ex.P8 - Discharge Summary Ex.P9 - Appointment Letter Ex.P10- Certificate of Service Ex.P11 - Certificate of Leave Ex.P12- Copy of ID Ex.P13- Pay slips (3 in nos) Ex.P14- Statement of account Ex.P15- Quotation regarding Prosthesis Ex.P16- Copy of Adhaar Card Ex.P17 - Medical bills (17 in nos amounting to Rs. 18,354/-) Ex.P18- Prescriptions (15 in nos) Ex.P19- Authorisation Letter Ex.P20- Case Sheets (2 in nos) Ex.P21- MLC Extract Ex.P22- X-rays (2 in nos) Ex.P23- OPD Book Ex.P24- X-ray Ex.P25- Authorization letter Respondent's NIL XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & MACT, Bangalore.SCCH-14 18 MVC No.2123/2015
Dt.11.01.2016 P-SGA R1 -Exparte R2-MD For Judgment Order pronounced in open court vide separate judgment.
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby allowed with costs.
The petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.14,33,000/-with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay to the petitioner a compensation of Rs.14,33,000/- with interest. In view of composite negligence of the respondent No.1 and the driver of the respondent No.2, the respondent No.1 is directed to deposit Rs.4,30,000/- with proportionate interest and the respondent No.2 is directed to deposit Rs.10,03,000/- with proportionate interest before the court within one month from the date of award.
Since, it is a case of composite negligence, the petitioner is at liberty to recover entire compensation amount and interest from any of the respondents. The respondent who satisfies the award in full, is at liberty to proceed against the other to recover his share of amount.SCCH-14 19 MVC No.2123/2015
After deposit, Rs.5,00,000/- shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner in any nationalized, scheduled or co- operative bank for a period of 3 years. Balance amount with interest shall be released in favour of the petitioner through account payee cheque with proper identification.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-. Draw award accordingly.
XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bangalore.SCCH-14 20 MVC No.2123/2015
AWARD SCCH NO.14 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA : BANGALORE CITY MVC No.2123/2014 Petitioner/s : Smt.Nethravathi.N.S, W/o Siddesh, Aged about 32 years, Residing at No.722, Dodda Thoguru, Bangalore South, Pin 560100 V/s (By pleader Sri SGA) Respondent/s 1.Manju .M.D. S/o Doddabasave Gowda, C/o Ramaiah Building, Vinayakanagara, Thirupalya Road, Hebbagodi Village, Electronic City Post, Bangalore-560100 And also at No.144/1, Vinayakanagara Near BES School, Thirupalya Road, Hebbagodi, Bangalore.
2.The Managing Director, BMTC Depot, Bangalore Central Office, KH Road, Shanthinagar, Bangalore-560027 (R1-Exparte, R2- By pleader Sri MD) WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the petitioner/s above named U/Sec.166 of the M.V.C. Act, praying for the compensation of Rs.
(Rupees ) for the injuries
SCCH-14 21 MVC No.2123/2015
sustained by the petitioner/Death of in a motor Accident by
vehicle No.
WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before Sri/Smt.Basavaraj Chengti, XVI Addl.Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. Advocate for respondent.
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby allowed with costs.
The petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.14,33,000/-with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay to the petitioner a compensation of Rs.14,33,000/- with interest. In view of composite negligence of the respondent No.1 and the driver of the respondent No.2, the respondent No.1 is directed to deposit Rs.4,30,000/- with proportionate interest and the respondent No.2 is directed to deposit Rs.10,03,000/- with proportionate interest before the court within one month from the date of award.
Since, it is a case of composite negligence, the petitioner is at liberty to recover entire compensation amount and interest from any of the respondents. The respondent who satisfies the award in full, is at liberty to proceed against the other to recover his share of amount.
SCCH-14 22 MVC No.2123/2015After deposit, Rs.5,00,000/- shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner in any nationalized, scheduled or co- operative bank for a period of 3 years. Balance amount with interest shall be released in favour of the petitioner through account payee cheque with proper identification.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day of 2016.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: Bangalore.
By the
__________________________________
Petitioner/s Respondent
No.1 No.2
__________________________________
Court fee paid on petition 10-00
Court fee paid on Powers 01-00
Court fee paid on I.A.
Process
Pleaders Fee
_____________________________
Total Rs. ----------------------------------
DecreeDrafted Scrutinised by
MEMBER, M.A.C.T.
METROPOLITAN: BANGALORE
Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR