Bangalore District Court
In M.V.C.No.6220/2013 Himself Has Been ... vs To Collude With The on 5 March, 2016
THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL. SMALL CAUSES AND ADDL.
MACT., BANGALORE, (SCCH-7)
Dated this, the 5th day of March, 2016.
PRESENT : SMT.INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR,
B.Com.,LL.B.(Spl.),LL.M.,
IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM,
Court of Small Causes,
Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
M.V.C.No.6219/2013
C/w. M.V.C.No.6220/2013
Anil Kumar Reddy. N., ..... PETITIONER IN
S/o. Viswanatha Reddy. N., M.V.C.No.6219/2013
Aged 26 years,
No.8/28, Cheene Palli,
Reddy Vari Palli,
Nimmana Palle,
Chittur District,
Andhra Pradesh - 517 280.
(By Sri. B. K. Vasudevamurthy, Adv.,)
V/s
1. Bharathi Axa General Insurance .....RESPONDENTS IN
Company Ltd., M.V.C.No.6219/2013
No.30,3rd Floor,
Bellary Road,
Hebbala,
Bangalore-560024.
(Policy
No.FCV/S1512812/41/09/B1415N)
SCCH-7 2 MVC.No.6219/2013
C/w MVC No.6220/2013
2. Mr. Ayub Khan,
No.57, 2nd Cross,
Magadi Road,
Bangalore - 560 023.
(Owner and insured of the vehicle)
(R-1 By Sri. S. Krishna Kishore, Adv.,)
(R-2 Exparte)
Prasanna Kumar. K., ..... PETITIONER IN
S/o. Kanderi Dananjayalu, M.V.C.No.6220/2013
Aged 28 years,
No.8/28, Jyothy Colony,
Railway Kodur,
Kadapa District,
Andra Pradesh.
(By Sri.B. K. Vasudeva Murthy, Adv.,)
V/s
1. Bharathi Axa General Insurance .....RESPONDENTS IN
Company Ltd.,
M.V.C.No.6220/2013
No.30, 3rd Floor,
Bellary Road,
Hebbala,
Bangalore-560024.
(Policy
No.FCV/S1512812/41/09/B1415N)
2. Mr. Ayub Khan,
No.57, 2nd Cross,
Magadi Road,
Bangalore - 560 023.
SCCH-7 3 MVC.No.6219/2013
C/w MVC No.6220/2013
(Owner and insured of the vehicle)
(R-1 By Sri. S. Krishna Kishore, Adv.,)
(R-2 By Exparte)
COMMON JUDGMENT
As per the Order dated 15.10.2014 passed on Memo in
M.V.C.No.6219/2013, M.V.C.No.6220/2013 is clubbed with the
said M.V.C.No.6219/2013 and the common evidence is recorded
in the said case. Hence, M.V.C.No.6219/2013 and
M.V.C.No.6220/2013 are pending for consideration and disposal
before this Tribunal by passing a common judgment.
2. The Petitioner in M.V.C.No.6219/2013 has filed the
said petition as against the Respondents No.1 and 2 under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, praying to award
compensation of Rupees 15,00,000/- with interest.
3. The brief averments of the Petitioner's case in M.V.C.
No.6219/2013 are as follows;
a) On 24.10.2013 at about 9.00 p.m., he being a pillion
rider of a Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-01-EG-8780
was going near Shrirampura Junction at Telecom Layout. The
rider of the said Motor Cycle was riding the same very carefully
and cautiously observing the traffic rules and regulations on the
left side of the road. At that movement, all of a sudden, one Auto
Rickshaw bearing Registration No.KA-02-AD-6790 driven by its
SCCH-7 4 MVC.No.6219/2013
C/w MVC No.6220/2013
driver in a rash and negligent manner, endangering to the human
life and at high speed came from the opposite direction and taking
sudden full left turn and dashed against his vehicle. Due to which
impact, he fell down and has sustained injuries, like, fracture of
right distal radius, fracture of right tibia lateral condyle and
abrasion all over the body.
b) Immediately, he was shifted to M.S. Ramaiah Hospital,
wherein, he took treatment as an inpatient for about 10 days.
Multiple operations were done to the leg and hand and implants
were fixed. He has spent more than a sum of Rupees 2,40,000/-
towards medical and other allowances.
c) He was hale and healthy at the time of accident and
he, being a System Admin in a Company called Mind Tree
Technologies was earning a salary of Rupees 3.2 lakhs per
annum.
d) Now because of this accident, he has become disabled
to do his work and is not in a condition to work permanently, so
as to earn for his livelihood and he is deprived of all his amenities.
He has to take bed rest for about 6 months and has lost his
earnings for that period.
e) The accident is only due to rash and negligent driving
of the driver of the said Auto Rickshaw. The jurisdictional Police
have registered a case and charge sheeted as against the said
driver in Crime No.125/2013 under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC.
SCCH-7 5 MVC.No.6219/2013
C/w MVC No.6220/2013
f) The Respondents being insurer and insured of the said
vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to
him. The policy of the said vehicle was valid at the time of
accident. Hence, this petition.
4. In response to the notice, the Respondent No.1 has
appeared before this Tribunal through its 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 21.01.2015 passed on I.A.No.II, the written statement filed
by the Respondent No.1 is taken on file.
5. Though the notice was duly served on the Respondent
No.2 by way of affixture, he was remained absent and hence, he is
placed as exparte on 05.08.2014.
6. The Respondent No.1 inter-alia denying the entire case
of the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.6219/2013, has further contended
as follows;
a) All the material allegations made in the petition are
false and the petition is not maintainable either on facts or in law
as against it.
b) The present claim petition is filed by the claimant
seeking compensation for the injuries suffered by him in the
alleged accident dated 21.10.2013 at about 9.00 p.m., when he
was proceeding as a pillion rider on Motor Cycle bearing
Registration No.KA-01-EG-8780 near Srirampura Junction at
SCCH-7 6 MVC.No.6219/2013
C/w MVC No.6220/2013
Telecom Layout, Yelahanka, Bangalore, at that time, the driver of
Auto Rickshaw bearing Registration No.KA-02-AD-6790 came in a
rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Motor Cycle on
which, he was proceeding, resulting injuries. The fact that, the
rider of Motor Cycle, on which, the Petitioner was proceeding was
at fault for the cause of accident and not the driver of Auto
Rickshaw bearing Registration No.KA-02-AD-6790 as alleged by
the Petitioner. In addition to that, the said Auto Rickshaw was not
holding valid fitness certificate and permit to ply on public road as
on the date of accident. Further, the driver of Auto Rickshaw Mr.
Syed Kareem also was not holding a valid driving licence to drive
the same. Hence, in view of violation of basic terms and conditions
of policy by the Respondent No.2, it is not required to indemnify
the Respondent No.2 in the present claim.
c) It admits to have issued Commercial vehicle -
Passenger carrying - liability only policy
No.FCV/S1512812/41/09/B1415N for the period between
17.09.2013 to 16.09.2014 in respect of Auto Rickshaw bearing
Registration No.KA-02-AD-6790 in favour of the Respondent No.2.
The liability of it, if any, is subject to the terms and conditions,
exceptions and limitations thereof and the confirmation of the
compliance of Section 64 VB of the Insurance Act, 1938. However,
in this case, it is not required to indemnify the Respondent
No.2/insured for the reason that, he has violated the basic terms
and conditions of the policy by driving the same without valid
driving licence and the vehicle was plying without valid fitness and
permit at the time of accident. In addition to that, the rider of
SCCH-7 7 MVC.No.6219/2013
C/w MVC No.6220/2013
Motor Cycle, on which, the Petitioner was proceeding as a pillioner
was at fault for the cause of accident.
d) As per the petition averments, two vehicles are involved
in the accident. However, the insured and insurer of said Motor
Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-01-EG-8780 was not made as
parties to the proceedings. Therefore, the claim petition is bad for
non-joinder of necessary parties.
e) The claim petition is filed under Section 166 of M.V.
Act, wherein, the Petitioner is required to plead and prove the
actionable negligence on the part of the driver of offending Auto
Rickshaw alone. However, it is not required to indemnify the
Respondent No.2 in the present claim for the reason that, the
rider of the Motor Cycle was fault for the cause of accident and not
the driver of Auto Rickshaw bearing Registration No.KA-02-AD-
6790.
f) It seeks protection under Section 147 and 149 of M.V.
Act.
g) The Petitioner claimed compensation at Rupees
15,00,000/- with current and future interest, which is highly
excessive and the same is contrary to Section 3 of the Interest Act,
1978 and the observations of the various Judgments of the
Hon'ble Apex Court.
SCCH-7 8 MVC.No.6219/2013
C/w MVC No.6220/2013
h) The Petitioner is not entitled to claim any interest on
non-pecuniary damages as per the observations of the Judgment
of Hon'ble Apex Court.
i) It craves leave of this Hon'ble Court to take all defences
available to the Respondent No.2 under Section 170 of M.V. Act
and contest the case on all the grounds apart from those specified
under Section 149(2) of M.V. Act.
j) It craves the leave of this Hon'ble Court to file an
additional counter at a later stage as and when the better
particulars come to its knowledge.
k) In view of the above facts, it prays that, this Hon'ble
Court may be pleased to dismiss the petition as against it with
costs, else, it will be put to irreparable loss and injury.
7. The Petitioner in M.V.C.No.6220/2013 has filed the
said petition as against the Respondents No.1 and 2 under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, praying to award
compensation of Rupees 15,00,000/- with interest.
8. The brief averments of the Petitioner's case in M.V.C.
No.6220/2013 are as follows;
a) On 24.10.2013 at about 9.00 p.m., he being a rider of
a Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-01-EG-8780 was going
near Shrirampura Junction at Telecom Layout, very carefully and
cautiously observing the traffic rules and regulations on the left
SCCH-7 9 MVC.No.6219/2013
C/w MVC No.6220/2013
side of the road. At that movement, all of a sudden one Auto
Rickshaw bearing Registration No.KA-02-AD-6790 driven by its
driver in a rash and negligent manner, endangering to the human
life and at high speed came from the opposite direction and taking
sudden full right turn and dashed against his vehicle. Due to
which impact, he fell down and has sustained injuries, like,
fracture of left hand, fracture of left distal radius, avulsion of right
knee ACI from tibial spine and abrasion all over the body.
b) Immediately, he was shifted to M.S. Ramaiah Hospital,
wherein, he took treatment as an inpatient for about 7 days.
Multiple operations were done to the leg and hand and implants
were fixed. He has spent more than a sum of Rupees 1,75,000/-
towards medical and other allowances.
c) He was hale and healthy at the time of accident and
he, being a Senior Engineer in a Company called Century Link
was earning a salary of Rupees 6.5 lakhs per annum.
d) Now, because of this accident, he has become disabled
to do his work and is not in a condition to work permanently, so
as to earn for his livelihood and he is deprived of all his amenities.
He has to take bed rest for about 5 months and has lost his
earnings for that period.
e) The accident is only due to rash and negligent driving
of the drive of the said Auto Rickshaw. The jurisdictional Police
SCCH-7 10 MVC.No.6219/2013
C/w MVC No.6220/2013
have registered a case and charge sheeted as against the said
driver in Crime No.125/2013 under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC.
f) The Respondents being insurer and insured of the said
vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to
him. The policy of the said vehicle was valid at the time of
accident. Hence, this petition.
9. In response to the notice, the Respondent No.1 has
appeared before this Tribunal through its 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 21.01.2015 passed on I.A.No.II, the written statement filed
by the Respondent No.1 is taken on file.
10. Though the notice was duly served on the Respondent
No.2 by way of affixture, he was remained absent and hence, he is
placed as exparte on 05.08.2014.
11. The Respondent No.1 inter-alia denying the entire case
of the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.6220/2013, has further contended
as follows;
a) All the material allegations made in the petition are
false and the petition is not maintainable either on facts or in law
as against it.
b) The present claim petition is filed by the claimant
seeking compensation for the injuries suffered by him in the
SCCH-7 11 MVC.No.6219/2013
C/w MVC No.6220/2013
alleged accident dated 21.10.2013 at about 9.00 p.m., when he
was proceeding as a rider on Motor Cycle bearing Registration
No.KA-01-EG-8780 near Srirampura Junction at Telecom Layout,
Yelahanka, Bangalore, at that time, the driver of Auto Rickshaw
bearing Registration No.KA-02-AD-6790 came in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed against the Motor Cycle on which,
he was proceeding, resulting injuries. The fact that, the Petitioner
being the rider of the Motor Cycle was at fault for the cause of
accident and not the driver of Auto Rickshaw bearing Registration
No.KA-02-AD-6790 as alleged by the Petitioner. In addition to
that, the said Auto Rickshaw was not holding valid fitness
certificate and permit to ply on public road as on the date of
accident. Further, the driver of Auto Rickshaw Mr. Syed Kareem
also was not holding a valid driving licence to drive the same.
Hence, in view of violation of basic terms and conditions of policy
by the Respondent No.2, it is not required to indemnify the
Respondent No.2 in the present claim.
c) It admits to have issued Commercial vehicle -
Passenger carrying - liability only policy
No.FCV/S1512812/41/09/B1415N for the period between
17.09.2013 to 16.09.2014 in respect of Auto Rickshaw bearing
Registration No.KA-02-AD-6790 in favour of the Respondent No.2.
The liability of it, if any, is subject to the terms and conditions,
exceptions and limitations thereof and the confirmation of the
compliance of Section 64 VB of the Insurance Act, 1938. However,
in this case, it is not required to indemnify the Respondent
No.2/insured for the reason that, he has violated the basic terms
SCCH-7 12 MVC.No.6219/2013
C/w MVC No.6220/2013
and conditions of the policy by driving the same without valid
driving licence and the vehicle was plying without valid fitness and
permit at the time of accident. In addition to that, the rider of
Motor Cycle, on which, the Petitioner being the rider of the Motor
Cycle was at fault for the cause of accident.
d) As per the petition averments, two vehicles are involved
in the accident. However, the insured and insurer of said Motor
Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-01-EG-8780 was not made as
parties to the proceedings. Therefore, the claim petition is bad for
non-joinder of necessary parties.
e) The claim petition is filed under Section 166 of M.V.
Act, wherein, the Petitioner is required to plead and prove the
actionable negligence on the part of the driver of offending Auto
Rickshaw alone. However, it is not required to indemnify the
Respondent No.2 in the present claim for the reason that, the
rider of the Motor Cycle was fault for the cause of accident and not
the driver of Auto Rickshaw bearing Registration No.KA-02-AD-
6790.
f) It seeks protection under Section 147 and 149 of M.V.
Act.
g) The Petitioner claimed compensation at Rupees
15,00,000/- with current and future interest, which is highly
excessive and the same is contrary to Section 3 of the Interest Act,
SCCH-7 13 MVC.No.6219/2013
C/w MVC No.6220/2013
1978 and the observations of the various Judgments of the
Hon'ble Apex Court.
h) The Petitioner is not entitled to claim any interest on
non-pecuniary damages as per the observations of the Judgment
of Hon'ble Apex Court.
i) It craves leave of this Hon'ble Court to take all defences
available to the Respondent No.2 under Section 170 of M.V. Act
and contest the case on all the grounds apart from those specified
under Section 149(2) of M.V. Act.
j) It craves the leave of this Hon'ble Court to file an
additional counter at a later stage as and when the better
particulars come to its knowledge.
k) In view of the above facts, it prays that, this Hon'ble
Court may be pleased to dismiss the petition as against it with
costs, else, it will be put to irreparable loss and injury.
12. Based on the above said pleadings, I have framed the
following Issues;
ISSUES
In M.V.C.No.6219/2013
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that,
the accident occurred due to rash
and negligent driving of the Auto
Rickshaw bearing Registration
No.KA-02-AD-6790 by its driver and
SCCH-7 14 MVC.No.6219/2013
C/w MVC No.6220/2013
in the said accident, he sustained
injuries?
2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for
compensation and damages? If so,
how much and from whom?
3. What Order?
In M.V.C.No.6220/2013
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that,
the accident occurred due to rash
and negligent driving of the Auto
Rickshaw bearing Registration
No.KA-02-AD-6790 by its driver and
in the said accident, he sustained
injuries?
2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for
compensation and damages? If so,
how much and from whom?
3. What Order?
13. In order to prove their case, the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.6219/2013 himself has been examined as P.W.1 and
has also examined one witness as P.W.3 by filing the affidavits as
their examination-in-chief and has placed reliance upon Ex.P.1 to
Ex.P.8, Ex.P.9(a), Ex.P.10(a), Ex.P.25 and Ex.P.26 and the
Petitioner in M.V.C.No.6220/2013 himself has been examined as
P.W.2 and has also examined one witness as P.W.3 by filing the
affidavits as their examination-in-chief and has placed reliance
upon Ex.P.9 to Ex.P.10, Ex.P.19 to Ex.P.24, Ex.P.27 and Ex.P.28.
SCCH-7 15 MVC.No.6219/2013
C/w MVC No.6220/2013
On the other hand, the Respondent No.1 has examined its Legal
Executive as R.W.1 and R.W.2 by filing the affidavits as their
examination-in-chief and has placed reliance upon Ex.R.1 and
Ex.R.2.
14. It is pertinent to note here that, Ex.P.9 and Ex.P.10 are
marked twice through P.W.1 and P.W.2 and hence, to avoid the
confliction, Ex.P.9 and Ex.P.10, which are marked through P.W.1
are treated as Ex.P.9(a) and Ex.P.10(a) in the following discussion.
15. Heard the arguments. The Learned Counsels appearing
for the Petitioners and the Respondent No.1 have filed the written
arguments.
16. In support of the submission, the Learned Counsel
appearing for the Petitioner in both the cases, Sri. B. K.
Vasudevamurthy has placed reliance upon the decisions reported
in,
i) 2011 ACJ 1820 High Court of Karnataka at
Bangalore (Regional Manager, Oriented Insurance Co. Ltd.,
V/s. J. Ananda Murthy and Others), wherein, it is observed that,
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166(1) and
(4) read with Section 158(6)-Claim
application- it is not necessary in all cases
that, claimants should file application under
Section 166 seeking compensation; it is
mandatory for the Tribunal to treat any report
SCCH-7 16 MVC.No.6219/2013
C/w MVC No.6220/2013
of accident forwarded to it under Section 158
(6) as an application for compensation.
10. For this view of ours, we gain support
from the fact that, as per sub-section (4) of
Section 166 of the Act. It is mandatory for the
Claims Tribunal to treat any report of
accidents forwarded to it under sub-section
(6) of section 158 as an application for
compensation under this Act. As per sub-
section (6) of section 158, an officer-in-charge
of the Police station as soon as he receives
information regarding any accident involving
death of or bodily injury to any person, he
shall forward a copy of such report within
thirty days from the date of recording of
information or on completion of such report
as the case may be to the Tribunal having
jurisdiction and a copy thereafter to the
concerned insurer. The said sub-section
further provides that, when a copy of such
report is made available to the owner, the said
owner is also under an obligation to forward
the same within thirty days from the date of
receipt of such report to the Claims Tribunal
and insurer.
11. Thus, from the scheme of the Act, it is
noticed that, it is not necessary in all cases
that, claimants themselves should file an
application under Section 166 of the Act
seeking compensation. As, the provisions of
Motor Vehicles Act regarding adjudication of
compensation payable to the victims are social
piece of legislation they Auto Rickshaw
required to be interpreted liberally.
SCCH-7 17 MVC.No.6219/2013
C/w MVC No.6220/2013
ii) 2012 ACJ 2694 Supreme Court of India (K.Suresh
V/s New India Assurance Co. Ltd., and Another), wherein, it is
observed that,
Quantum-Injury-Principles of assessment-
Loss of earning power and permanent
disability-injured sustained injuries
resulting in 40 percent permanent
disablement-Tribunal awarded Rupees
5,00,000/- for loss of earning capacity and
further Rupees 3,00,000/- towards
permanent disablement- Appellate court
allowed Rupees 4,68,000/- for loss of
earning capacity and disallowed
compensation for permanent disablement-
Whether total deletion of compensation for
permanent disablement is justified-Held:
no: compensation can be granted under
both heads (2011 ACJ 1974 (SC0 and 1990
ACJ 777 (SC) followed: 2011 ACJ
2650(Madras) over ruled.
Quantum-Injury-Principles of assessment-
Mental agony-Injured sustained injuries
leading to 40 percent permanent
disablement-Tribunal allowed
Rupees.3,00,000 towards mental agony in
addition to compensation for medical
expenses, future medical expenses, pan and
suffering, permanent disablement, loss of
earning capacity and other heads-Whether
Tribunal was justified in awarding separate
compensation of Rupees.3,00,000 for
mental agony-Held: no.
Quantum-Injury-Principles of assessment-
Pain and suffering-Whether any
compensation for pain and suffering of
SCCH-7 18 MVC.No.6219/2013
C/w MVC No.6220/2013
members of family of injured is permissible-
Held: no.
Quantum-Injury-Principles of assessment-
Participation in social functions-Injured
sustained injuries resulting in40 percent
permanent disablement- Tribunal awarded
Rupees.2,00,000 for the inability to
participate in social function-Whether the
High Court was justified in disallowing
compensation for inability to participate in
social functions as there was no evidence-
Held: yes.
Quantum-Injury-Spine, leg and shoulder-
Triple fracture in spinal cord. Fracture in
left leg, neck of femur, fracture in right
shoulder, deep cut and degloving injury over
left thigh bone and multiple injuries all over
the body-Injured Hospitalized for 28 days,
dislocation of bones got reduced., pedicle
screws were inserted in pedicles of D11
vertebra and L1 vertebra, two rods were
implanted with screws on left thigh,
decompression of D12 vertebra was done,
bone chips were placed in inter transverse
area on both sides-Injured has numbness
below knee joint and was facing difficulty to
stand and sit-Injured would require future
medical treatment for removing rods and
scares or scanning them from time to time
and due to persistent pain, he may have to
undergo constant physiotherapy treatment-
Medical board assessed permanent
disability at 40 percent Tribunal awarded
Rs.25,00,000-High Court allowed
Rs.2,00,000 towards medical expenses,
Rs.5,000 for transportation, Rs.5,000 for
extra nourishment, Rs.2,50,000 towards
pain and suffering, Rs.50,000 for future
SCCH-7 19 MVC.No.6219/2013
C/w MVC No.6220/2013
medical expenses and Rs.4,68,000 towards
loss of earning capacity; total Rs.9,78,000-
Apex Court allowed Rs.2,00,000 for future
expenses instead of Rs.50,000; Rs.2,00,000
for pain and sufferings instead of
Rs.2,50,000, Rs.2,50,000 for permanent
disablement and some amount for future
transportation etc. Tribunal's award
Rs.25,00,000, which was reduced to
Rs.9,75,000 by High Court, enhanced to
Rs.13,48,000 by Apex Court. 2011 ACJ
2650 (Madras) Modified).
17. In support of the submission, the Learned Counsel
appearing for the Respondent No.1 in both the cases, Sri. S.
Krishna Kishore has placed reliance upon the decisions reported
in,
i) ILR 2009 KAR 3562 Circuit Bench at Gulbarga
(Veerappa and Another V/s. Siddappa and Another), wherein, it
is observed that,
(A) Motor Vehicles Act 1988- Accident claim-
Dismissal of claim petition -Appealed against-
FRAUS ET JUS MUNQUAM COHABITANT-
Fraud and justice never Dwell Together - An
attempt on the part of the 1st
Respondent/owner to collude with the
claimants with the fond hope of saddling
Insurance Company to pay compensation-1st
Respondent/owner of the vehicle admitted the
accident and had no objection for award of
compensation - Held, even though the owner
of the vehicle is unmistakable terms, has
admitted the accident, that admission has no
value in the eye of law. He has admitted,
SCCH-7 20 MVC.No.6219/2013
C/w MVC No.6220/2013
something about which he has no knowledge
and which he has not seen. It is clear that the
said admission is made with the sole object of
getting compensation to the claimants as it is
the Insurance Company which will pay, and
not the owner, Though admission is the best
piece of evidence, it cannot be accepted as
gospel truth. The court can insist on proof of
facts, if the admission is not satisfactory. In
the instant case, since the court was not
satisfied, it wanted the claimants to prove
their case independently. The claimants have
miserable failed to prove their cases. On facts,
held, the accident took place on 26.06.2001.
The insured died on 28.06.2001. No complaint
is lodged by the father of the injured setting
out the case now pleaded. According to him,
he went to lodge a complaint on 28.08.2001.
They refused to receive it. Therefore, he lodged
a private complaint before the jurisdictional
Magistrate on 31.08.2001. The earlier FIR,
Charge Sheet are all suppressed both by the
Police and the claimant. The vehicle involved
in the accident was never seized by the Police.
The truth came out during investigation by
the insurer. Under these circumstances, the
Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim
petition.
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988- Claim petition-
Dismissal of - Fraud played on the courts by
the claimants with the connivance of the 1st
Respondent - Liability of the Insurance
Company to pay the compensation. HELD:
Insurance Company not liable to indemnify
the owner of the vehicle who has played fraud
and not liable to pay compensation to the
claimants who are also party to the fraud.
FURTHER HELD:- It is a clear case of fraud
played on the court by the claimants with the
connivance of 1st Respondent. Once the
SCCH-7 21 MVC.No.6219/2013
C/w MVC No.6220/2013
insured plays fraud, admits the liability with
the sole object of foisting liability on the
Insurance Company, though infact he knew
that it is not true, liability of the Insurance
Company to indemnify such insured cases.
Therefore, there is no obligation on the part of
the Insurance Company to indemnify the
insured even though he has taken the policy
was the statute mandates that the Insurance
Company has to indemnify the insurer and
pay compensation to third party. When fraud
is established from the material on record,
such statutory obligation stands discharged.
There is no third party liability on the part
of the Insurance Company to pay
compensation to the claimants. This amount
is awarded in order to see that in future such
false defences are not filed before court,
judicial process is not abused. Therefore, it is
only the 1st Respondent owner who is liable to
pay the amount.
Dismissal of the claim petition against the
Insurance Company is affirmed.
ii) ILR 2009 KAR 2921 (Bajaj Allianz General
Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s. B. C. Kumar and Another), wherein, it
is observed that,
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 - Accident
claim - Award Insurance Company appeal
Plea of Guilt by the driver conviction in the
Criminal case - Can the plea of guilt by the
driver become the sole criterion for allowing
the claim petition by the M.A.C.T. - A Case of
Insurance Company disputing the very factum
of Accident - Sustainability of the award
SCCH-7 22 MVC.No.6219/2013
C/w MVC No.6220/2013
passed by the M.A.C.T - HELD, The M.A.C.T
should not and ought not to place sole
reliance on the judgment of the Criminal
Court while considering the issue of the
factum of the accident and the consequent
negligence, as stated in the claim petition filed
before the Tribunal. But, the Tribunal will
have to assess the evidence before it
independently of any finding of the Criminal
Court on the question of the driver pleading
guilty. At the most, the circumstance of the
driver pleading guilty may be considered as
one of the pieces of evidence to support the
case of the claimant. But,, the Tribunal
should not place implicit reliance only on the
circumstance of the driver having pleaded
guilty before the Criminal Court and such an
approach by the Tribunals will be not only
and side approach but, at the same time there
is every likelihood of the pleading of guilt by a
driver before the Criminal Court having been
obtained by adopting various methods so as to
ensure that, the claimant succeeds before the
M.A.C.T in getting compensation - FUTURE
HELD, There has been spate of cases wherein
false claims have been made before the claims
Tribunal and false implications are also on the
increase. The M.A.C.Ts are constituted not
only to allow the claim petitions which are
genuine in nature but,, at the same time, the
Tribunals also will have to keep in view that,
compensation should not be awarded
mechanically in every case and to accept the
case of the claimant as if all that, the claimant
says about the accident and the injuries is a
truthful one. Merely because a claimant in a
particular case comes out with the evidence
that, the driver of the vehicle is convicted on
his pleading guilty, the Tribunal should not go
by the plead guilty factor alone, but, it is
required to appreciate the evidence before it
SCCH-7 23 MVC.No.6219/2013
C/w MVC No.6220/2013
from every angle and if there is a good reason
to question the very case of the claimant or
doubt the very manner of the accident, in
such cases, the Tribunal will have to view the
factor of pleading guilty along with the entire
evidence placed before it and make an
assessment of the whole situation. - Award
passed by the Tribunal is not justified.
Appeal is allowed.
iii) Civil Appeal No.3171 of 2009 (Supreme Court)
(North West Karnataka Road Transport Corp., V/s. Gourabai
and Others), wherein, it is observed that,
Challenge in this appeal is to the order
passed by the learned single judge of the
Karnataka High Court dismissing the appeal
filed by the appellant. Challenge in the said
appeal was to an award made by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal No. VII, Bijapur(in
short MACT). An award of Rupees 2,59,400/-
was made. The main contention of the
appellant before the MACT as well as before
the High Court was that, the deceased did not
sustain any injury in any accident involving
the bus of the corporation. Reference was
made to the evidence of the Doctor, who had
admitted the deceased to the Hospital, that,
the deceased had suffered head injury due to
fall from the height of 8 to 10 feet of his own
house. Though this was specifically stated in
the written statement, the MACT and the High
Court brushed aside the same stating that,
there was indirect admission about the
deceased having sustained injury in vehicular
accident. The effect of the evidence of the
Doctor and exhibit R-1 does not appear to
SCCH-7 24 MVC.No.6219/2013
C/w MVC No.6220/2013
have been looked into by the MACT and the
High Court, MACT did not place reliance on
the document R-1 on the ground that, the
brother of the injured stated that, he did not
know what was written in the document and
his signature was taken on one page. This
conclusion overlooks from the fact that, the
Doctor will not take his signature on a piece of
paper mentioning something which is not
correct. E.R.1 established beyond the shadow
of doubt that, the injuries sustained were not
on account of any vehicular accident. That,
being so, the MACT and the High Court were
not justified in making any award. The order
of the MACT and High Court stand set aside.
This appeal is accordingly, allowed.
18. My answers to the above said Issues are as follows;
M.V.C.No.6219/2013
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative,
The Petitioner is
entitled for compensation
of Rupees 1,21,935/- with
interest at the rate of 8%
p.a. from the date of the
petition till the date of
payment, from the
Respondent No.1.
Issue No.3 : As per the final Order,
SCCH-7 25 MVC.No.6219/2013
C/w MVC No.6220/2013
M.V.C.No.6220/2013
Issue No.1 : In the Negative,
Issue No.2 : In the Negative,
Issue No.3 : As per the final Order,
for the following;
REASONS
19. ISSUE NO.1 IN M.V.C.NO.6219/2013 :- The P.W.1,
who is the Petitioner has stated in his examination-in-chief that,
on 24.10.2013 at about 9.00 p.m., he being a pillion rider of the
Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-01-EG-8780 was going
near Shrirampura Junction at Telecom Layout and the rider of the
said Bike was riding the same very carefully and cautiously
observing the traffic rules and regulations on the left side of the
road and at that movement, all of a sudden, an Auto Rickshaw
bearing Registration No.KA-02-AD-6790 driven by its driver in a
rash and negligent manner, endangering to the human life and at
high speed, had come from the opposite direction and taking
sudden full left turn and dashed as against his vehicle, in which,
he was traveling. He has further stated that, due to the said
impact, he fell down and has sustained multiple injuries, like,
fracture of distal radius of right hand, fracture of tibia lateral
condoyle of right leg and abrasion over the body. He has further
stated that, immediately, he was shifted to M.S.Ramaiah Hospital,
wherein, he took treatment as an inpatient for 10 days. He has
further stated that, the accident is only due to rash and negligent
SCCH-7 26 MVC.No.6219/2013
C/w MVC No.6220/2013
driving of the driver of the said Auto Rickshaw and the
jurisdictional Police have filed a case and charge sheeted as
against the said driver.
20. The P.W.1 in his cross-examination has stated that, in
October 2012, he met with an accident and sustained injuries and
in this regard, he has taken treatment to the said injuries at
Mallige Hospital, Bangalore and in the said accident, he had only
sustained injury on right thumb. Further, in Ex.P.8 Discharge
Summary, it is mentioned that, the Petitioner was admitted in
M.S.Ramaiah Hospital with history of present illness account of
alleged history of road traffic accident while he was riding a Bike
hit by Auto at around 8.45 p.m., on 24.10.2013 near IBM,
Manyath Tech Park, Bangalore. From this, it appears that, at the
time of accident, the Petitioner was riding the offending Motor
Cycle. Further, the R.W.1, who is the Legal Executive of the
Respondent No.1 has stated in his examination-in-chief that, as
per the averments, the Petitioner was proceeding as a pillion rider
on Motor Cycle and said to have been hit by Auto Rickshaw
bearing Registration No.KA-02-AD-6790 and he took treatment in
M.S.Ramaiah Hospital, Bangalore as an inpatient for 10 days by
spending Rupees 2,40,000/- towards medical and other
allowances. However, the Petitioner has produced 52 Medical Bills
amounting to Rupees 40,935/- and as per Discharge Summary
issued by M.S. Ramaiah Hospital, the history of present illness is
mentioned as "A/o alleged H/o while he was riding a bike hit by
Auto at around 8.45 p.m. on 24.10.2013 near IBM Manyata Tech
Park, Bangalore". He has further stated that, the Insurance Policy
SCCH-7 27 MVC.No.6219/2013
C/w MVC No.6220/2013
Number is mentioned in the Discharge Summary is IP0071547
and since the petition averments are contrary to the immediate
Hospital records and he got reimbursement for the medical
expenses incurred by him through Medi Assist Private India Ltd.,
under Medi-Claim Policy. He has further stated that, since the
Petitioner has not suffered the injuries as stated by him in the
claim petition, the date of accident mentioned in the claim petition
is differ in Hospital records and he is claiming compensation for
the injuries suffered by him in the accident occurred in the month
of October 2012.
21. But, based on the said oral version of P.W.1, which is
elicited from his mouth by the Respondent No.1, the history of
admission of Petitioner in M.S.Ramaiah Hospital shown in Ex.P.8
Discharge Summary and also the oral version of R.W.1, it cannot
be thrown away the above said entire oral version of P.W.1, which
has been stated by him in his examination-in-chief, as, he has
clearly stated in his evidence that, at the time of accident, he was
proceeding as a pillion rider on Motor Cycle bearing Registration
No.KA-01-EG-8780 and to consider the same, the Petitioner has
also produced documentary evidence, which are marked at Ex.P.1
FIR, Ex.P.2 Complaint, Ex.P.3 Charge Sheet, Ex.P.4 Wound
Certificate, Ex.P.5 Spot Hand Sketch, Ex.P.6 Spot Panchanama,
Ex.P.7 MVI Report and Ex.P.18 X-ray Films, which clearly
disclosed that, when the Petitioner was proceeding as a pillion
rider of the Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-01-EG-8780,
which was riding by the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.6220/2013, on
24.10.2013 at 9.00 p.m. near Srirampura Junction, Telecom
SCCH-7 28 MVC.No.6219/2013
C/w MVC No.6220/2013
Layout, Yelahanka, Bangalore, the offending Auto Rickshaw
bearing Registration No.KA-02-AD-6790 came with high speed,
rash and negligent manner on opposite direction and suddenly
took right turn and dashed to the Motor Cycle and due to which,
both the Petitioner and rider fell down on the road along with
Motor Cycle and due to said impact, the Petitioner had sustained
two grievous injuries and by admitting as an inpatient from
25.10.2013 to 03.11.2013, i.e., 9 days, he took treatment to the
said accidental injuries at M.S.Ramaiah Hospital, which is clear
from the following discussion. Furthermore, the R.W.1 in his
cross-examination has clearly admitted that, in Wound Certificate,
it is mentioned that, the accident is occurred due to road traffic
accident and it is mentioned in the charge sheet that, the accident
was occurred on 24.10.2014. Further, the P.W.1 in his cross-
examination has clearly stated that, the Police came to the
Hospital and recorded his statement and he has noted the Auto
Rickshaw number and he has taken treatment at M.S.Ramaiah
Hospital only. He has further clearly stated that, at the time of
accident, he was a pillion rider of the Motor Cycle. He has further
clearly stated that, there was head on collusion with the bike and
Auto Rickshaw. Further, the P.W.1 in his cross-examination has
clearly denied the suggestion put to him by the Respondent No.1
that, the present claim petition seeking compensation in respect of
the injuries sustained by him in the incident taken place on
21.10.2013 and he had not sustained any injuries in any
accident, which caused either on 21.10.2013 or 24.10.2013 and
he has not taken treatment to the alleged injuries in any Hospital.
From this, it appears that, though the P.W.1 has been cross
SCCH-7 29 MVC.No.6219/2013
C/w MVC No.6220/2013
examined by the Respondent No.1, nothing has been elicited from
his mouth to consider its defence.
22. The contents of Ex.P.1 FIR and Ex.P.2 Complaint
clearly disclosed that, the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.6220/2013, who
was a rider of the Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-01-EG-
8780, has lodged Ex.P.2 Complaint before the Yelahanka Traffic
Police as against the driver of the offending Auto Rickshaw bearing
Registration No.KA-02-AD-6790 by alleging that, on 24.10.2013 at
9.00 p.m., the offending Auto Rickshaw bearing Registration
No.KA-02-AD-6790 came with very high speed, rash and negligent
manner near Sri Rampura Junction from Amruthahalli Telecom
Layout and dashed to his Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-
01-EG-8780, which was proceeding on the opposite direction
along with the pillion rider and due to the said impact, both fell
down along with Motor Cycle on the road and due to the said
impact, the pillion rider, i.e., the present Petitioner had sustained
grievous injuries on his both hands, legs and other parts of the
body and the said Motor Cycle is badly damaged and the
passengers, who were traveling in the said offending Auto
Rickshaw had also sustained injuries and all the injured were
shifted to M.S.Ramaiah Hospital for treatment and hence, he
prayed to take necessary legal action as against the driver of the
offending Auto Rickshaw and based on the said complaint, the
said Police have registered a criminal case as against the driver of
the said offending Auto Rickshaw for the offences punishable
under Section 279 and 338 of IPC under Crime No.125/2013. It is
also clear from the contents of Ex.P.1 FIR and Ex.P.2 Compliant
SCCH-7 30 MVC.No.6219/2013
C/w MVC No.6220/2013
that, there is no delay as such in lodging Ex.P.2 Compliant in
respect of the said road traffic accident.
23. The contents of Ex.P.5 Spot Hand Sketch, Ex.P.6 Spot
Panchanama and Ex.P.7 MVI Report further clearly disclosed that,
the Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-01-EG-8780 was
proceeding on the extreme left side of the road and the offending
Auto Rickshaw bearing Registration No.KA-02-AD-6790 was
coming on the left side of the said road on opposite direction and
took right side by its driver negligently without observing the
oncoming of the said Motor Cycle on opposite direction and
dashed to the said Motor Cycle. The entire negligence is on the
part of the driver of the offending Auto Rickshaw and there was no
negligence on the part of the rider of the Motor Cycle is clear from
the contents of the said material documents. It is also clear from
the contents of the said documents that, there is no contributory
negligence attributed on the part of the rider of the Motor Cycle
bearing Registration No.KA-02-AD-6790, who is a Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.6220/2013. The damages caused to both the vehicles
are clearly shown in Ex.P.7 MVI Report, which clearly disclosed
about the terrific impact of the said road traffic accident. If the
driver of the offending Auto Rickshaw would have taken a little
care, he could have avoided the said road traffic accident. It is also
clearly mentioned in Ex.P.7 MVI Report that, the said accident
was not occurred due to any mechanical defects of the said
vehicles.
SCCH-7 31 MVC.No.6219/2013
C/w MVC No.6220/2013
24. The contents of Ex.P.4 Wound Certificate disclosed
that, the Petitioner was referred to their Hospital with certain
injuries due to road traffic accident said to have been caused on
dated 24.10.2013 time 9.00 p.m., near Manyata Tech Park,
Nagawara, Bangalore and on examination, it is found that, he had
sustained the injuries, i.e., Tenderness, swelling in right wrist
joint, tenderness, swelling, deformity and abnormal mobility of the
right lower limb, right distal radius fracture, lateral condyle
fracture, lateral part of the right tibia, which are grievous in
nature.
25. The contents of Ex.P.8 Discharge Summary and Ex.P.8
X-ray Film clearly disclosed that, it is finally diagnosed that, the
Petitioner had sustained right distal radius fracture, right tibia
lateral condyle fracture, right femur mid shaft segmental fracture
and by admitting as an inpatient from 25.10.2013 to 03.11.2013,
i.e., 9 days, he took treatment to the said accidental injuries at
M.S.Ramaiah Hospital. From the said medical evidence, it is made
crystal clear that, in the said road traffic accident, the Petitioner
had sustained 3 grievous injuries.
26. The contents of Ex.P.3 Charge Sheet further clearly
disclosed that, since during the course of investigation, it is found
that, due to very high speed, rash and negligent manner of driving
of the offending Auto Rickshaw bearing Registration No.KA-02-AD-
6790 by its driver itself, the said road traffic accident was taken
place on 24.10.2013 at 9.00 p.m. near Sri Rampura Junction,
Telecom Layout, Amruthahalli, which was proceeding from
SCCH-7 32 MVC.No.6219/2013
C/w MVC No.6220/2013
Amruthahalli towards Telecom Layout and dashed to the Motor
Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-01-EG-8780, which was
proceeding on the opposite direction on the same road and due to
which, the rider and pillion rider of the said Motor Cycle, i.e., the
present Petitioner and the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.6220/2013 had
sustained grievous injuries and in the said road traffic accident,
the offending Auto Rickshaw also caused damages and one
passenger had also sustained grievous injuries and as such, after
thorough investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed a charge
sheet as against the driver of the Auto Rickshaw for the offences
punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC. There is no
allegation leveled by the Investigating Officer in Ex.P.3 Charge
Sheet as against the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.6220/2013, who was
riding the Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-01-EG-8780
about his negligence in the commission of the said road traffic
accident.
27. From the above said material evidence, both oral and
documentary, it is clearly proved that, the entire negligence is on
the part of the driver of the offending Auto Rickshaw bearing
Registration No.KA-02-AD-6790 and there was no negligence on
the part of the rider of the Motor Cycle bearing Registration
No.KA-01-EG-8780, i.e., the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.6220/2013
and in the said road traffic accident, the Petitioner had sustained
3 grievous injuries. The very involvement of the offending Auto
Rickshaw bearing Registration No.KA-02-AD-6790 as well as its
driver in the said road traffic accident is clearly proved.
Accordingly, I answered Issue No.1 in the Affirmative.
SCCH-7 33 MVC.No.6219/2013
C/w MVC No.6220/2013
28. ISSUE NO.2 IN M.V.C.No.6219/2013 :- The Petitioner
has not produced any authenticated documents to consider his
actual age at the time of accident. Even, the P.W.1, who is the
Petitioner, has not stated anything about his actual age at the
time of accident. But, the above said Police and medical
documents clearly disclosed that, at the time of accident, the
Petitioner was 24 years old. Hence, the age of the Petitioner is
considered as 24 years old at the time of accident.
29. The P.W.1 has stated that, he was hale and healthy
and he was working as a System Admin in a Private Company
called Mind Tree and was earning a salary of Rupees 3.2 lakhs per
annum. In this regard, the Petitioner has produced Ex.P.12 Salary
Slips 4 in numbers, Ex.P.13 Leave Sanction Letter dated
10.10.2014, Ex.P.15 Form No.16 2 in numbers, Ex.P.15 Form
No.12 BA and Ex.P.16 Bank Account Statement. On perusal of the
contents of the said material documents, it clearly shows that, at
the time of accident, the Petitioner was working as a System
Administrator and he is a permanent employee and during
September 2013, i.e., previous month of the accident, the
Petitioner was drawing Gross Salary of Rupees 39,964/-. Hence,
the income of the Petitioner is considered as Rupees 39,964/- at
the time of accident.
30. The P.W.1 has stated that, multiple operations were
done and implants were fixed to both the right leg and right hand
and other treatments were given. He has further stated that, after
discharge from the Hospital, he has taken bed rest for a period of
SCCH-7 34 MVC.No.6219/2013
C/w MVC No.6220/2013
3 months as per the advise of the Doctor and he is still taking
treatment as an outpatient till date as the injury is not fully
healed.
31. Based on the contents of Ex.P.4 Wound Certificate and
Ex.P.8 Discharge Summary, this Tribunal has already come to the
conclusion that, in the said road traffic accident, the Petitioner
had sustained right distal radius fracture, right tibia lateral
condyle fracture and right femur mid-shaft segemental fracture
and by admitting as an inpatient from 25.10.2013 to 03.11.2013,
i.e., 9 days, he took treatment to the said accidental injuries at
M.S.Ramaiah Hospital. It is also clearly mentioned in Ex.P.8
Discharge Summary that, during the course of treatment CIRF
with multiple K-wire of right distal radius and CRIF with CC
screws for right lateral condyle fracture under GA was dome on
25.10.2013 and CRIF IMIL nail for right femur on 25.10.2013.
From this, it appears that, during the course of treatment,
implants are inserted to the fracture site of the Petitioner. It is also
clearly mentioned in Ex.P.8 Discharge Summary that, the
Petitioner was advised for follow-up treatment, i.e., review in
Ortho OPD on 07.11.2013 for future removal. The P.W.3, who has
assessed the disability of the Petitioner, has stated in his
examination-in-chief that, the Petitioner was treated surgically for
all the said injuries. From this, it is made crystal clear that, even
after discharge from the Hospital, the Petitioner was very much
required regular follow-up treatment as per the advise of the
treated Doctor. Further, the Petitioner has produced Ex.P.13
Leave Sanction Letter dated 10.10.2014, Ex.P.17 Medical
SCCH-7 35 MVC.No.6219/2013
C/w MVC No.6220/2013
Certificates 2 in numbers, which clearly disclosed that, the
Petitioner was on medical leave from 24.10.2013 to 22.11.2013,
i.e., during Hospitalization and from 26.08.2013 to 08.03.2011 as
per medical records. Therefore, the evidence stated by the P.W.1 in
respect of taking regular follow-up treatment as per the advise of
the Doctors for accidental injuries even after discharge from the
Hospital can very well be believed and accept.
32. The P.W.1 has stated that, he has lost his earnings
during the period of bed rest from the date of accident. He has
further stated that, now because of this accident, he could not do
any work at the time of bed rest due to the said accident and even
now also, he is not able to do any simple work in his house and he
is depending on others to do the same for him. He has further
stated that, he cannot walk and run as he was doing before and
he cannot walk for shorter and longer distance and he cannot
stand straight for long time and sit comfortably for long time due
to the said accident. He has further stated that, he cannot lift his
right hand and bear weight using his right hand due to the
fracture in the said accident and now because of this disability he
has become disabled to do his work. He has further stated that, he
cannot fold his right leg comfortably, cannot sit cross legged as he
was doing before, he cannot hold any object and he cannot bear
any weight using his right hand. He has further stated that, his
job requires him to do his work with lot of physical strength and
he has lost the same due to this accident and he is unable to do
any kind of work at his current condition.
SCCH-7 36 MVC.No.6219/2013
C/w MVC No.6220/2013
33. The P.W.3, who is an Orthopedic Surgeon has stated in
his examination-in-chief that, he has gone through the wound
certificate and discharge summaries before assessing the
disabilities and now on presentation, the Petitioner complains of
pain and difficulty in sitting for a long time walking and climbing
stairs and he also complains of pain and difficulty in lifting heavy
weight using his right wrist for activities of daily life. He has
further stated that, he gives history of inability to squat and sit
cross legged and also gives history of numbness over left wrist and
thumb. He has further stated that, on examination the Petitioner
walks with pain and limping, diffuse swelling of the right lower
limb is seen and surgical scars are seen over right hip, thigh and
knee. He has further stated that, surgical scars are also seen over
right wrist. He has further stated that, the recent X-rays shows
united fractures of femur and tibia with implants in situ at both
the site and X-rays of right wrist shows united fracture distal
radius with an intra articular step. By considering the restriction
of movements in respect of right upper limb, i.e., elbow, wrist,
forearm and loss of muscle power around right wrist, disability
involving the mobility component of right upper limb and
coordinated activities, i.e., combing and painting, eating, using
Indian style, buttoning, tie wear dhoti writing, etc., and hip, knee,
girth of right lower limb loss of muscle power of right hip and
knee, disability involving the mobility component of right lower
limb, stability component, i.e., climbing stairs, squatting, sitting
cross legged, taking turns, etc., the P.W.3 has opined that, the
total disability of right lower limb that, of right lower limb and that
of whole body is 32%, which is permanent. He has further stated
SCCH-7 37 MVC.No.6219/2013
C/w MVC No.6220/2013
that, the Petitioner is said to be a System Admin in a Private Ltd.,
and the said disability come in the way of his daily life. He has
further stated that, he has followed the Central Government
Guidelines before assessing the said disabilities. The P.W.3 has
also produced Ex.P.25 Outpatient Card and Ex.P.26 X-ray Film.
34. But, based on the said oral version of P.W.1 and P.W.2
coupled with the contents of the above said medical documents, it
cannot be believed and accept that, due to the said accidental
injuries, the Petitioner is suffering from permanent physical
disability to right upper limb at 38% and 48% to right lower limb
and 32% to the whole body, as, the P.W.3 is not a treated Doctor
and the Petitioner has not examined the treated Doctor to consider
the difficulties and disability, which is suffering by him due to the
said accidental injuries and in this regard, the P.W.3 in his cross-
examination has clearly stated that, he has not treated the
Petitioner and only he has assessed the disability of the Petitioner.
He has further clearly stated that, as per the recent X-ray films,
i.e., Ex.P.26, the fractures are united and the Petitioner is having
mild pain. Further, the P.W.3 has not specifically mentioned the
measurement of limping. The same has also been clearly admitted
by the P.W.3 in his cross-examination. Further, the P.W.3 has
only assessed the permanent physical impairment and he has not
assessed the functional disability of the Petitioner, which is arising
out of the accidental injuries and the same has also been clearly
admitted by the P.W.3 in his cross-examination. He has further
clearly stated that, he has no personal knowledge of the avocation
of the Petitioner. He has further clearly stated that, the Petitioner
SCCH-7 38 MVC.No.6219/2013
C/w MVC No.6220/2013
can do his activities with such extent of disability as stated by
him. Furthermore, as admitted by the Petitioner, he is a
permanent employee. Though the P.W.1, who is the Petitioner, has
stated in his cross-examination that, he is removed from the
service, he has not produced the documents to consider the same.
The same has also been clearly admitted by the P.W.1 in his
cross-examination by stating that, he has not produced any
documents to show that, he is removed from the service. He has
further clearly stated that, even during leave period, he has
received salary and he was on medical leave as per Ex.P.13 Leave
Sanction Letter 10.10.2014. From this, it appears that, during the
treatment, the Petitioner had only applied medical leave and he
has not lost any salary. It is not the case of the Petitioner that,
after the accident, he was removed from the service by his
employer. The Petitioner has also not examined his employer to
show that, after the accident, he is not able to do any simple work
either in his house or in the Office. Therefore, the said extent of
32% permanent disability as stated by the P.W.3 cannot be
believed and accept.
35. However, in the said road traffic accident, the
Petitioner had sustained three grievous injuries, i.e., Tenderness,
swelling in right wrist joint, tenderness, swelling, deformity and
abnormal mobility of the right lower limb, right distal radius
fracture, lateral condyle fracture, lateral part of the right tibia and
by admitting as an inpatient from 25.10.2013 to 03.11.2013, i.e.,
for 9 days, he took treatment to the said accidental injuries at
M.S.Ramaiah Hospital and since during the course of treatment,
SCCH-7 39 MVC.No.6219/2013
C/w MVC No.6220/2013
implants are inserted to the fracture sites of the Petitioner and at
the time of accident, the Petitioner was 24 years old and he was
working as a System Admin. Hence, due to the said accidental
injuries, the Petitioner is definitely suffering from permanent
physical and functional disability to some extent. By considering
all these material facts, this Tribunal feels that, due to the said
injuries, the Petitioner is suffering from permanent physical and
functional disability of 12% to the whole body, which is believable
and acceptable one. Hence, the Petitioner is entitled for
compensation under the following heads.
36. As this Tribunal has already come to the conclusion
that, the permanent physical and functional disability of the
Petitioner is of 12%. This would certainly come in the way of the
future life of the Petitioner and thereby, his income to that extent
would be definitely reduced. Therefore, the Petitioner is entitled for
future loss of income arising out of the permanent physical and
functional disability of 12%.
37. As per Ex.P.4 Wound Certificate and evidence of P.W.1
and P.W.3, the Petitioner had sustained two grievous injuries. The
Petitioner was in the Hospital as an inpatient from 25.10.2013 to
03.11.2013, i.e., for 9 days. Due to the said injuries, the Petitioner
could have definitely suffered a lot of pain and agony. Considering
the said aspects, it is just, proper and necessary to award a sum
of Rupees 50,000/- towards pain and suffering.
SCCH-7 40 MVC.No.6219/2013
C/w MVC No.6220/2013
38. As it is already observed that, the age of the Petitioner
was 24 years at the time of accident. He has to lead remaining his
entire life with 12% permanent physical and functional disability,
which comes in the way of enjoyment of life. Therefore, it is just
and proper to award a sum of Rupees 20,000/- towards loss of
amenities of life to the Petitioner.
39. It is not disclosed by the Petitioner either in the
petition or in his evidence that, he was unmarried as on the date
of accident. In view of the absence of pleadings as well as
evidence, the Petitioner is not entitled for compensation towards
loss of marriage prospects.
40. The P.W.1, who is the Petitioner, has stated in his
cross-examination that, even leave period, he has received salary
and he was on medical leave as per Ex.P.13. Ex.P.13 Leave
Sanction Letter dated 10.10.2014 only disclosed that, the
Petitioner is employed with Maintech Technologies Pvt. Ltd., since
April 2005, 2011 to this date, i.e., 10.10.2014 as a permanent
employee and his designation is System Administrator and he was
on medical leave from October 2014, 2013 to 22 November 2013
due to Hospitalization. Nowhere in Ex.P.13, it is mentioned by the
employer of the Petitioner that, during the said leave period, no
salary is disbursed to the Petitioner. Hence, the Petitioner is not
entitled for any compensation towards loss of income during the
laid up period.
SCCH-7 41 MVC.No.6219/2013
C/w MVC No.6220/2013
41. The P.W.1 has stated that, he has spent more than
Rupees 2,00,000/- towards medical and other allowance and out
of the Hospital expenses an amount of Rupees 1,00,000/- is paid
by his Insurance Company to the Hospital and rest of the
expenses are paid by his pocket. In this regard, the Petitioner has
produced Ex.P.9 Medical Bills 52 in numbers, which is amounting
of Rupees 40,935/-, Ex.P.10 Self Paid Bill Receipt Voucher Rupees
19,997/- and Ex.P.11 Medical Prescriptions 5 in numbers. The
P.W.1 in his cross-examination has also clearly stated that, he
had medical reimbursement of Rupees 1,00,000/- under Medi
Assist. The same has been clearly mentioned in Serial No.1 of
Ex.P.9 Medical Bills. The Petitioner has shown Rupees 19,407/- in
the memo of calculation in respect of the amount covered under
Serial No.1 of Ex.P.9 Medical Bills, which comes after deduction of
the said Rupees 1,00,000/- out of the total bill amount of Rupees
1,19,406-89. The said amount paid by the Petitioner is also shown
in Ex.P.10. Therefore, the amount of Rupees 40,935/-, which
covered under Ex.P.9 Medical Bills can very well be taken into for
consideration. The Petitioner has taken treatment at M.S.
Ramaiah Hospital, wherein, he was taken treatment as an
inpatient from 25.10.2013 to 03.11.2013, i.e., for 9 days.
Considering the nature of the injuries and 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 40,935/- to the
Petitioner.
SCCH-7 42 MVC.No.6219/2013
C/w MVC No.6220/2013
42. The P.W.1 has stated that, he has to undergo two more
operations for removal of implants fixed to his right leg and right
hand and which will cost him around a sum of Rupees 70,000/-
and he has to take bed rest of one month after the said future
operation, as per the advice of the Doctor. The P.W.3 has stated
that, the Petitioner needs one more surgery to removal of the
implants at both the sites and which would cost around Rupees
30,000/- in a private set-up. It is clearly mentioned in Ex.P.8
Discharge Summary about CRIF with multiple K-wire of right
distal radius and CRIF with CC screw for right lateral condyle of
tibia fracture under GA on 25.10.2013 and CRIF with IMIL nail for
right femur on 25.10.2013, which disclosed about the insertion of
implants in situ. The said implants have to be removed and
therefore, the Petitioner requires the amount for future medical
expenses. But, the Petitioner is not entitled for any compensation
towards future medical expenses, as, the Petitioner is a permanent
employee and after the accident and treatment he continues the
job as admitted by himself and he has reimbursement facility
under Medi Assist and also from his employer. Therefore, the
Petitioner is not entitled for any compensation towards future
medical expenses.
43. As the Petitioner was taken treatment as an inpatient
for 9 days, it is necessary to award a sum of Rupees 3,000/-
towards conveyance charges, Rupees 3,000/- towards attendant
charges and Rupees 5,000/- towards food, nourishment and diet
charges etc.,
SCCH-7 43 MVC.No.6219/2013
C/w MVC No.6220/2013
44. In this way, the Petitioner is entitled for the following
amount of compensation:-
Sl. No. Compensation heads Compensation amount
1. Pain and sufferings Rs. 50,000-00
2. Loss of amenities of life Rs. 20,000-00
3. Actual medical expenses Rs. 40,935-00
4. Conveyance Rs. 3,000-00
5. Attendant Charges Rs. 3,000-00
Food, Nourishment &
6. Rs. 5,000-00
Diet charges
TOTAL Rs. 1,21,935 -00
45. In all, the Petitioner is entitled for total compensation
of Rupees 1,21,935/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per
annum on the above said sum from the date of petition till
payment.
46. The P.W.1 has stated that, the vehicle was duly
insured with Respondent No.1 and hence, the Respondents being
insurer and insured of the said vehicle are jointly and severally
liable to pay the compensation to him.
47. While answering Issue No.1, this Tribunal has already
come to the conclusion that, the entire negligence is on the part of
the driver of the offending Auto Rickshaw bearing Registration
No.KA-02-AD-6790 and there was no negligence on the part of the
rider of the Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-01-EG-8780,
i.e., the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.6220/2013 and in the said road
traffic accident, the Petitioner had sustained 3 grievous injuries
SCCH-7 44 MVC.No.6219/2013
C/w MVC No.6220/2013
and the very involvement of the offending Auto Rickshaw bearing
Registration No.KA-02-AD-6790 as well as its driver in the said
road traffic accident is clearly proved. The Petitioner in the cause
title of the petition has clearly mentioned that, the Respondent
No.1 is an insurer and the Respondent No.2 is a owner and
insured of the offending Auto Rickshaw bearing Registration
No.KA-02-AD-6790 and its Insurance Policy
No.FCV/S1512812/41/09/B1415N. The Respondent No.1 in its
written statement has clearly admitted that, it has insured
Commercial Vehicle - Passenger Carrying - Liability only Policy
No.FCV/S1512812/41/09/B1415N for the period between
17.09.2013 to 16.09.2014 in respect of Auto Rickshaw bearing
Registration No.KA-02-AD-6790 in favour of the Respondent No.2.
The R.W.1, who is the Legal Executive of the Respondent No.1 has
clearly stated in his examination-in-chief that, the Auto Rickshaw
bearing Registration No.KA-02-AD-6790 belongs to the
Respondent No.2 and insured with their Company vide Policy No.
FCV/S1512812/41/09/B1415N for the period between
17.09.2013 to 16.09.2014. The Respondent No.1 has also
produced Ex.R.2 Insurance Policy relating the said offending Auto
Rickshaw. From this material evidence, it is clearly proved that, at
the time of accident, the Respondent No.1 was an insurer and the
Respondent No.2 was a registered owner of the offending Auto
Rickshaw bearing Registration No.KA-02-AD-6790 and its
Insurance Policy was valid, which covered the date of accident.
There is no allegation leveled by the Investigating Officer as
against the driver of the offending Auto Rickshaw in Ex.P.3 Charge
Sheet that, at the time of accident, he was not having a valid and
SCCH-7 45 MVC.No.6219/2013
C/w MVC No.6220/2013
effective driving licence to drive such class of offending Auto
Rickshaw. The violation of the terms and conditions of the
admitted Insurance Policy by the Respondent No.2 is not proved
by the Respondent No.1. Under such circumstances, the
Respondent No.1 being an insurer and the Respondent No.2 being
a registered owner of the offending Auto Rickshaw bearing
Registration No.KA-02-AD-6790 are jointly and severally liable to
pay the above said compensation and interest to the Petitioner.
Since, the Respondent No.2 is an insurer, it shall indemnify the
Respondent No.1. 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 and the Respondent
No.1 are not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of
the case on hand. Hence, Issue No.2 is answered accordingly.
48. ISSUES NO.1 AND 2 IN M.V.C.No.6220/2013 :- The
P.W.2, who is the Petitioner has stated in his examination-in-chief
that, on 24.10.2013 at about 9.00 p.m., he being a rider of a
Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-01-EG-8780 was going
near Shrirampura Junction at Telecom Layout, very carefully and
cautiously, observing the traffic rules and regulations on the left
side of the road and at that moment, all of a sudden, one Auto
Rickshaw bearing Registration No.KA-02-AD-6790 driven by its
driver, in a rash and negligent manner, endangering to human life
at high speed, has come from the opposite direction and taking
sudden full right turn and dashed his vehicle. He has further
stated that, due to the said impact, he fell down and sustained
multiple injuries, i.e., fracture of left hand, fracture of left distal
SCCH-7 46 MVC.No.6219/2013
C/w MVC No.6220/2013
radius, avulsion of right knee ACI from tibial spine, fracture and
dislocation of right knee, abrasion over the body. He has further
stated that, immediately, he was shifted to M.S.Ramaiah Hospital,
wherein, he took treatment as an inpatient for about 7 days and
multiple operations were done and implants were fixed to the left
hand and to right leg fractured sites and other treatments were
given. He has further stated that, he has spent more than Rupees
1,70,000/- towards medical and other allowances and out of the
Hospital expenses, an amount of Rupees 90,000/- is paid by his
Insurance Company to the Hospital and rest of the expenses are
paid by his pocket. He has further stated that, after discharge
from the Hospital, he took bed rest as per the advise of the Doctor
for about 6 months and he is still taking treatment as an
outpatient till date and even till today, he is taking bed rest as the
injury is not fully healed. He has further stated that, he has lost
his earnings during the period of bed rest from the date of
accident till today. He has further stated that, he was hale and
healthy at the time of accident and was working as a Senior
Engineer in a Private Company and was earning a salary of
Rupees 6.5 lakhs per annum and now because of this accident, he
could not go to do his work at the time of bed rest due to the said
accident and even now also, he is not able to do any simple work
in his house and he is depending on the others to do the same for
him. He has further stated that, he cannot walk and he cannot
run as he was doing before and he cannot walk for shorter and
longer distance on his own without limping, he cannot stand
straight for long time and sit comfortably for long time, which is
very much necessary for his job and this has happened due to the
SCCH-7 47 MVC.No.6219/2013
C/w MVC No.6220/2013
accident. He has further stated that, he cannot lift his left hand
and cannot bear any small weight in left hand due to the fracture
in the said accident and now because of this disability, he has
become 100% dependant on others to do his work. He has further
stated that, he cannot fold his right leg comfortably, sit cross
legged as he was doing before, he cannot hold any object and
cannot bear any weight using his left hand as such his job
requires him to do his work with lot of physical strength and he
has lost the same due to this accident and he is unable to do any
kind of work at his current condition. He has further stated that,
the accident has spoiled his life and it will harm his future also
and hence, he is 100% functionally disabled to do any work and to
earn for his livelihood. He has further stated that, he has to
undergo one more operation for removal of implants fixed to his
leg and left hand and which will cost him around a sum of Rupees
75,000/- and he has to take bed rest for one month after the said
future operation as per the advice of the Doctor. He has further
stated that, the accident is only due to the rash and negligent
manner of driving of the driver of the said Auto Rickshaw and the
jurisdictional Police have filed a case and charge sheeted as
against the said driver. He has further stated that, the vehicle was
duly insured with the 1st Respondent and hence, the Respondents
being the insurer and insured of the said vehicle are jointly and
severally liable to pay the compensation to him.
49. The Petitioner has produced Ex.P.9 Wound Certificate,
Ex.P.10 Discharge Summary, Ex.P.19 Medical Bills 15 in
numbers, which is amounting of Rupees 26,752/-, Ex.P.20 Self
SCCH-7 48 MVC.No.6219/2013
C/w MVC No.6220/2013
paid Bill Receipt Voucher, Ex.P.21 Form No. 12 BA, Ex.P.22 Form
No.16, 3 in numbers, Ex.P.23 Pay Slips 3 in numbers and Ex.P.24
Bank Account Statement.
50. The Petitioner has also examined the Orthopedic
Surgeon as P.W.4, who has stated in his examination-in-chief
that, on 23.12.2014, he has examined the Petitioner by name
Prasannakumar. K., aged about 29 years, clinically and radio
logically as to the assessment of his disabilities and he is said to
have met with road traffic accident on 24.10.2013 and he was
treated at M.S.Ramaiah Hospital as an inpatient and he was
diagnosed to have fracture of distal radius of left sided, ACL
avulsion from tibial spine right knee and he was treated surgically
for both the injuries. He has further stated that, now on
presentation, he complains of pain and difficulty in sitting for a
long time, walking and climbing stairs and he also complains of
pain and difficulty in lifting heavy weight using his left hand and
he gives history of inability to squat and sit cross legged, history of
numbness over left wrist and thumb. He has further stated that,
on examination, he walks with pain and limping, wasting of the
right lower limb is seen, surgical scars are seen over right knee
and left distal forearm. He has further stated that, his recent X-
rays shows united fracture of distal radius with implants in situ
and ACL implant over the tibial side in situ at right knee is seen.
By considering the restriction of movements of left upper limb
relating around elbow, wrist, girth, left wrist co-ordinated
activities, restricting of movement relating to right lower limb of
knee, girth and to muscle power around the right knee, stability
SCCH-7 49 MVC.No.6219/2013
C/w MVC No.6220/2013
component, the P.W.4 has opined that, total disability of the
Petitioner to left lower limb at 30%, right lower limb at 40% and
that of whole body 39%, which is permanent. He has further
stated that, the Petitioner is said to be a Senior Engineer at
Century Link India Private Limited and the said disabilities come
in the way of his activities of daily life. He has further stated that,
he has followed the Central Government Guidelines before
assessing the said disabilities. He has further stated that, the
Petitioner needs one more surgery for removal of the implants at
both the sites, which would cost around Rupees 30,000/- in a
private set-up. The P.W.4 has produced Ex.P.27 Outpatient Card
and Ex.P.28 X-ray Film.
51. Further, the Respondent No.2, who was a registered
owner and insured of the offending Auto Rickshaw bearing
Registration No.KA-02-AD-6790, is placed as exparte.
52. But, based on the said oral version of P.W.2 and P.W.4
coupled with the contents of Ex.P.9 to Ex.P.24, Ex.P.27 and
Ex.P.28, it cannot be considered the case made out by the
Petitioner that, he sustained the injuries in the road traffic
accident, which caused due to rash and negligent manner of
driving of the offending Auto Rickshaw bearing Registration
No.KA-02-AD-6790 by its driver itself and due to the said
accidental injuries, he is suffering from difficulties and disability
and as such, he is entitled for compensation from the
Respondents as prayed for, as, inspite of giving sufficient
opportunities, the P.W.2 not tendered for cross-examination by
SCCH-7 50 MVC.No.6219/2013
C/w MVC No.6220/2013
the Respondent No.1 and as such, whatever stated by the P.W.2 in
his examination-in-chief cannot be taken for consideration.
Further, it is well settled principle of law that, if the witness not
tendered for cross-examination by the other side, whatever stated
by him in the examination-in-chief remains as such and it has no
evidentiary value at all. No doubt, the P.W.4, who is an Orthopedic
Surgeon has given evidence in respect of the injuries sustained by
the Petitioner in the road traffic accident, the line of treatment and
the difficulties and disability sustaining by the Petitioner due to
the said accidental injuries, in his examination-in-chief and he
has also subjected to cross-examination by the other side. But,
only based on the said oral version of P.W.4 coupled with the
contents of Ex.P.27 OPD Card and Ex.P.28 X-ray film produced by
the P.W.4, it cannot be believed and accept the entire case made
out by the Petitioner as against the Respondents, as, the P.W.4 is
only a witness, who is examined by the Petitioner on his behalf
only to consider the assessment of disability, which is arising out
of the accidental injuries and he is not a party to the present
petition. To consider the case of the Petitioner, his personal
evidence is very much required. But, the Petitioner himself has
utterly failed to tender himself for cross-examination. Therefore, it
can be safely held that, the Petitioner has utterly failed to prove
his specific case to claim compensation from the Respondents by
adducing acceptable material evidence. Further, the Petitioner
himself has approached the Tribunal claiming compensation by
filing this petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1989. Hence, the Petitioner is not entitled for any compensation
from the Respondents. In view of the reasons, the petition filed by
SCCH-7 51 MVC.No.6219/2013
C/w MVC No.6220/2013
the Petitioner is liable to be rejected as against the Respondents.
In view of the above said reasons, the principles enunciated in the
decision cited by the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner,
i.e., 2011 ACJ 1820 High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore
(Regional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s. J. Anand
Murthy and Others, are not applicable to the present facts and
circumstances of the case on hand. Hence, Issues No.1 and 2 are
answered in the Negative.
53. ISSUE NO.3 IN M.V.C.No.6219/2013 :- For the
aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
The petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The Petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rupees 1,21,935/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of payment, from the Respondent No.1.
The Respondent No.1 shall deposit the said compensation and interest in this Tribunal, within one month from the date of this order.
SCCH-7 52 MVC.No.6219/2013C/w MVC No.6220/2013 In the event of deposit of compensation and interest, the entire amount shall be released in the name of the Petitioner through account payee cheque, on proper identification.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rupees 1,000/-.
Original copy of the Judgment shall be kept in M.V.C.No.6219/2013 and the copy of the same shall be kept in M.V.C.No.6220/2013.
Draw award accordingly.
54. ISSUE NO.3 IN M.V.C.No.6220/2013 :- For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER The petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, is hereby rejected.
No Order as to costs.
Original copy of the Judgment shall be kept in M.V.C.No.6219/2013 SCCH-7 53 MVC.No.6219/2013 C/w MVC No.6220/2013 and the copy of the same shall be kept in M.V.C.No.6220/2013.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and then, pronounced by me in the open Court on this, the 5th day of March, 2016.) (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 : Anilkumar Reddy. N. P.W.2 : Prasannakumar..K. P.W.3 : Dr. S. A. Somashekar P.W.4 : Dr. S. A. Somashekar
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 Charge Sheet
Ex.P.4 : True copy of Wound Certificate
Ex.P.5 : True copy of Spot Hand Sketch
Ex.P.6 : True copy of Spot Panchanama
Ex.P.7 : True copy of MVI Report
Ex.P.8 : Discharge Summary
Ex.P.9 : Medical Bills (52 in numbers)
Ex.P.10 : Self Paid Bill Receipt Voucher
Ex.P.11 : Medical Prescriptions (5 in numbers)
SCCH-7 54 MVC.No.6219/2013
C/w MVC No.6220/2013
Ex.P.12 : Salary Slips (4 in numbers)
Ex.P.13 : Leave Sanction Letter dated 10.10.2014
Ex.P.14 : Form No.16 (2 in numbers)
Ex.P.15 : Form No.12BA
Ex.P.16 : Bank Account Statement
Ex.P.17 : Medical Certificate (2 in numbers)
Ex.P.18 : X-ray Film
Ex.P.19 : Medical Bills (15 in numbers)
Ex.P.20 : Self Paid Bill Receipt Voucher
Ex.P.21 : Form No.12BA
Ex.P.22 : Form No.16 (3 in numbers)
Ex.P.23 : Pay Slips (3 in numbers)
Ex.P.24 : Bank Accounts Statement
Ex.P.25 : Outpatient Card
Ex.P.26 : X-ray Film
Ex.P.27 : Outpatient Card
Ex.P.28 : X-ray Film
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE RESPONDENTS :-
R.W.1 : Shambhu Kumar
R.W.2 : Shambhu Kumar
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED BY THE RESPONDENTS :-
Ex.R.1 : Authorisation Letter Ex.R.2 : True copy of Insurance Policy (INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR) IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.