Bangalore District Court
Mr. A.Ravindranath vs Karnataka Government Insurance on 23 January, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL
SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND M.A.C.T (SCCH-24)
AT BENGALURU.
PRESENT: Smt. HIREMATH SHOBHARANI
BABAYYA.
B.Com.LL.B.(Spl.)
XXII Additional Small Causes Judge
& Member MACT, Bengaluru.
DATED: This the 23rd day of January, 2015.
M.V.C.No.5343/2013
Petitioner : Mr. A.Ravindranath,
S/o Late N. Ashwathaiah,
Aged 52 years,
R/at No.1, 2nd Cross,
3rd Main, Maruthi Layout,
J.P. Nagar, 7th Phase,
Bangalore-560 078.
(Represented: By Sri. B.S. Devaraju-
Advocate- Bangalore).
- Versus -
Respondents : 1. Karnataka Government Insurance
Department,
14th Floor, & 16th Floor,
Vishweshwaraiah Tower,
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore-560 001.
(Policy No.121205,
2 SCCH-24
M.V.C.5343/2013
Period of Insurance
from 25.05.2013 to 24.5.2014).
2. Regional Fire Officer,
Bangalore South Range,
Bannerghatta Road,
Near Bangalore Dairy Circle,
Bangalore-560 029.
(Res.No.1:By Sri. Naveen Chandra
Shetty,
2nd Addl. Dist. Govt
Pleader
Bengaluru.
Res.No.2:By Sri. Prakash C.,-
Advocate- Bengaluru).
XXII ASCJ & MEMBER,
MACT-Bengaluru.
3 SCCH-24
M.V.C.5343/2013
JUDGEMENT
The petitioner has filed this claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming the compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him in the Motor Vehicles Accident.
2. The brief facts projected by the petitioner is as here under:
That, on 28.08.2013 at about 10.15 a.m., the petitioner was traveling as a rider in his Motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-29-J-8479 from Kalasipalya and proceeding towards J.C. Road on A.M. Road from west to east direction to go to his office. He was riding his vehicle slowly, cautiously and observing all the traffic norms on the extreme left side of the said road, when he came near the Kumbaragundi 4 SCCH-24 M.V.C.5343/2013 junction, at that time all of a sudden an HGV-Fire Engine bearing Reg.No.KA-42-G-13 driven by its driver at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, from right side and took sudden left turn towards Kumbaragundi (No Entry) road and dashed against the petitioner's vehicle from behind. Due to the impact, the petitioner fell down from the vehicle, the rear left side wheel of the said Fire Engine ran over his left foot.
3. It is alleged that, immediately, the petitioner was shifted to KIMS hospital, Bangalore, wherein he was treated as an inpatient. The petitioner is still bed-ridden and under treatment and so far has spent Rs.75,000/- towards the medical, conveyance and nourishment expenses.
4. It is alleged that, before the accident, the petitioner was working as a clerk at Syndicate Bank, J.C. Road, Bangalore and he was getting 5 SCCH-24 M.V.C.5343/2013 Rs.40,000/- per month. After the accident he is unable to lead normal life as earlier and not able to do his job as earlier and suffering from huge loss of income.
5. It is alleged that, the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the HGV Fire Engine bearing Reg.No.KA-42-G-13 and in this regard the City Market Traffic Police have registered the case. It is alleged that, the 1st respondent being the insurer and 2nd respondent being the owner of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. For all these reasons the petitioner has prayed to award the compensation along with interest and costs.
6. In response to the notice, the respondent No.1 and 2 have appeared through their Counsel before the Tribunal and filed the written statement.
6 SCCH-24 M.V.C.5343/2013
7. The respondent No.1 has contended that, the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The 1st respondent has denied the entire allegations made in the claim petition and put the petitioner to strict proof of the same. It is the contention of the 1st respondent that, petitioner was riding his two wheeler bearing Reg.No.KA-29-J-8479 has failed to give way to emergency service fire engine van bearing Reg.No. KA-42-G-13 and it is the negligent act of the petitioner who has not followed the traffic rules and regulations in respect of emergency services. The averments made in the petition are all imaginary. The 1 st respondent has denied the negligent act of the driver of the fire engine bearing Reg.No.KA-42-G-13. The 1 st respondent has admitted the issuance of policy and its force on the date of accident. For all these reasons prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
7 SCCH-24 M.V.C.5343/2013
8. The 2nd respondent has contended that, the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The 2nd respondent has denied the entire allegations made in the claim petition and put the petitioner to strict proof of the same. The 2 nd respondent has contended that, the compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly exaggerated without any basis. The 2nd respondent has contended that, the 1st respondent is the insurer of the Fire Engine bearing Reg.No.KA-42-G-13 belonging to 2nd respondent and the insurance is valid from the date of accident. For all these reasons prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
9. On the basis of the above pleadings and the rival contentions of both the parties, the following issues are framed:-
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, he has sustained grievous injuries in the 8 SCCH-24 M.V.C.5343/2013 road traffic accident that occurred on 28.08.2013 at about 10.15 a.m., while riding his motor cycle bearing Reg.No. KA-29-J-8479 near Kumbaragundi Junction, Kalasipalya New Extension, Bangalore due to the rash and negligent driving of the HGV-Fire Engine bearing Reg.No.KA-42-G-13 by its driver as alleged?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation as claimed? If so, to what amount and from whom ?
3. What order or award?
10. In order to substantiate the case made out by the petitioner, the petitioner got himself examined as P.W.1 and in support of his evidence one witness has been examined as P.W.2 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.31. Thereafter, the petitioner closed his side evidence.
11. In order to rebut the evidence so placed on record by the petitioner, the respondents have not chosen to adduce evidence. Thereafter respondents side evidence closed.
9 SCCH-24 M.V.C.5343/2013
12. Heard the arguments of both sides. Written arguments filed by the 2 nd respondent. Perused the materials placed on record.
13. My findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 - In the Affirmative. Issue No.3 - Partly in the Affirmative.
The petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.1,41,357/- from respondent No.1 and 2.
Issue No.3 - As per final order, for the following :
REASONS Issue No.1:
14. It is the case of the petitioner that, on 28.08.2013 at about 10.15 a.m., the petitioner was traveling as a rider in his Motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-29-J-8479 from Kalasipalya and proceeding towards J.C. Road on A.M. Road from west to east direction to go to his office. He was 10 SCCH-24 M.V.C.5343/2013 riding his vehicle slowly, cautiously and observing all the traffic norms on the extreme left side of the said road, when he came near the Kumbaragundi junction, at that time all of a sudden an HGV-Fire Engine bearing Reg.No.KA-42-G-13 driven by its driver at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, from right side and took sudden left turn towards Kumbaragundi (No Entry) road and dashed against the petitioner's vehicle from behind. Due to the impact, the petitioner fell down from the vehicle, the rear left side wheel of the said Fire Engine ran over his left foot.
15. In order to prove the actionable negligence, the petitioner himself entered into witness box and filed affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief and got examined as PW 1. He reiterates the averments and the allegations made in the petition. He has deposed that, the accident 11 SCCH-24 M.V.C.5343/2013 has occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the HGV-Fire Engine bearing Reg.No.KA-42-G-13 by its driver. During the course of cross-examination, P.W.1 has denied the suggestion that, he has not given way to the emergency fire engine and due to his negligence the accident occurred and there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the HGV-Fire Engine.
16. The petitioner has relied upon various police documents produced at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.25. Out of which, Ex.P.1 is the copy of the First Information Report, Ex.P.2 is the copy of the Complaint, Ex.P.3 is the copy of the Mahazar, Ex.P.4 is the copy of the IMV Report, Ex.P.5 is the copy of the Charge Sheet, Ex.P.6 is the copy of the Wound Certificate and Ex.P.25 is the copy of the Spot Sketch. Ex.P.1, i.e., the copy of First Information Report discloses that the criminal case has been 12 SCCH-24 M.V.C.5343/2013 registered against the driver of the HGV-Fire Engine bearing Reg.No.KA-42-G-13 for the offences punishable under Sec.279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. After thorough investigation, the police have filed the charge sheet against the driver of the HGV-Fire Engine bearing Reg.No.KA- 42-G-13 for the offences punishable under Sec.279, 338 of Indian Penal Code. Thus, the contents of the police documents prima-facie establishes the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the HGV- Fire Engine bearing Reg.No.KA-42-G-13.
17. The 1st respondent has taken specific defence that, the petitioner was riding his two wheeler bearing Reg.No.KA-29-J-8479 has failed to give way to emergency service HGV-Fire Engine bearing Reg.No. KA-42-G-13 and it is the negligent act of the petitioner who has not followed the traffic rules and regulations in respect of emergency 13 SCCH-24 M.V.C.5343/2013 services. In order to substantiate the said facts, the respondents have not chosen to adduce evidence on their behalf. The respondents could have examined the driver of the HGV-Fire Engine bearing Reg.No. KA-42-G-13 to show that, there was no negligence on his part and there is negligence on the part of the petition. In spite of subjecting the petitioner for cross-examination, no fruitful cross- examination was conducted to rebut the contents of the respective police documents. It is clear from the police documents that, criminal case has been registered against the driver of the HGV-Fire Engine bearing Reg.No. KA-42-G-13, which remained unchallenged. Ex.P.6 discloses that, the petitioner has sustained injuries in the said accident. Under these circumstances, the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6 establishes that the accident has caused solely due to rash and negligent driving 14 SCCH-24 M.V.C.5343/2013 of the HGV-Fire Engine bearing Reg.No. KA-42-G-13 by its driver. Accordingly, Issue No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.
Issue No.2:
18. The petitioner has sustained injuries in the said accident. He has relied upon Ex.P.6, i.e., the Wound Certificate issued by KIMS Hospital and Research Centre, Bangalore. Ex.P.6 reveals that the petitioner had sustained the following injuries:
1. Degloving injury of right ankle, tenderness present.
Right Foot: Fracture shaft of the right first metatarsal.
CT-Right Ankle with foot:
Communited fracture of the base and head of 1st metatarsal bone with fracture line extending to the articular surface and proximally and distally.
Fracture of lateral cuniform bone involving the distal articular surface.
15 SCCH-24 M.V.C.5343/2013 Chip fracture of talus postero inferiorly.
Chip fracture of Navicular bone. As per Ex.P.6 the above injuries are grievous in nature. There is no much dispute with regard to the injuries sustained by the petitioner. In view of the findings recorded on Issue No.1, the petitioner has suffered injuries because of the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the HGV-Fire Engine bearing Reg.No. KA-42-G-13. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for the compensation.
19. The petitioner has sustained grievous injuries and he was taken treatment as an inpatient for a period of 10 days. Petitioner has undergone surgeries and implants fixation. Taking into consideration of the gravity of injuries, duration of the treatment, treatment as an inpatient, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has suffered severely due to the accidental injuries.
16 SCCH-24 M.V.C.5343/2013 Hence the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering.
20. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that, he has spent a sum of Rs.80,000/- towards medical, conveyance and nourishment. The petitioner has produced Ex.P.19 i.e., the 38 medical bills amounting to Rs.56,223/-. Out of which the bills at Sr.No.15, 19, 23 and Sr.No.30 in Ex.P.19 are not standing in the name of petitioner and they are in the name of Ravi Kumar. The bills at Sr.No.25 and 26 in Ex.P.19 are standing in the name of Rekha. Hence, the said bills are not considered. Taking into consideration of the nature of the injury and the treatment as an inpatient actual medical bills, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.44,357/- towards Medical Expenses.
21. Ex.P.7 the discharge summary issued by KIMS Hospital and Research Centre, Bangalore 17 SCCH-24 M.V.C.5343/2013 reveals that, the petitioner was treated as an inpatient from 28.08.2013 to 06.09.2013. During this period the petitioner must have spent money for food and nourishment. In the absence of documentary evidence and having regard to all these aspect, I am of the considered opinion that, the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards Food and Nourishment expenses.
22. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that, immediately after the accident he was shifted to KIM Hospital. P.W.1 has deposed that, he has taken continuous treatment from the date of accident, after discharge from the hospital, he visited the doctors for dressing the wound and for follow-up treatment once in a alternate days for the period of one month and once in a week for the period of 3 months and later once in a month for the period of 2 months. He has deposed that, he visited the 18 SCCH-24 M.V.C.5343/2013 doctors by engaging an auto the fare will be around Rs.400/- per visit. P.W.1 has produced Ex.P.8 to 11 i.e., 4 Outpatient Card. Except the self serving statement and outpatient cards, P.W.1 has not produced any other documentary evidence. In the absence of documentary evidence, having regard to all these aspect, I am of the considered opinion that, the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards conveyance expenses
23. It is the evidence of the petitioner that, he has taken continuous follow-up treatment and he has applied the leave for 46 days and suffered from huge loss of income. P.W.1 deposed that, after the accident he has engaged a housemaid servant to lookafter his daily activities. In this regard he is paying Rs.3,000/- per month to him till today. The grievous nature of injury certainly made it inevitable for the petitioner to have an attendant.
19 SCCH-24 M.V.C.5343/2013 The petitioner was in the hospital for a period of 10 days and he has sustained grievous injuries. Having regard to all these facts I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges.
24. It is stated in the petition as well as in the evidence of P.W.1 that, the petitioner was working as a Clerk at Syndicate Bank, Bangalore and was earning Rs.41,239/- per month. After the said accident he is not able to do any physical or manual work as before. In this regard the petitioner has produced Ex.P.14 the pay slip and Ex.P.15 the Salary Certificate for the month of July 2013. Ex.P.15 shows that, the salary of the petitioner for the month of July 2013 is Rs.41,239=15. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that, he has applied the leave for 46 days and suffered huge 20 SCCH-24 M.V.C.5343/2013 loss of income. To substantiate the said facts, the petitioner has produced Ex.P.16 the Leave Certificate. Ex.P.16 reveals that, the petitioner has availed sick leave for 46 days i.e., from 28.08.2013 to 12.10.2012 on account of the accident. In Ex.P.16 the leave period is mentioned as sick leave and there is no mention as to loss of salary during the said leave period. The petitioner has not examined his employer to support the contents of Ex.P.16. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that, the petitioner is not entitled for the compensation towards loss of income during the period of treatment.
25. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that, the doctors advised him to undergo two more surgeries to his right food i.e., corrective surgery and removal of implants. The cost of surgery is around Rs.60,000/-. P.W.2 has deposed that, the petitioner 21 SCCH-24 M.V.C.5343/2013 requires one more surgery -Tendon Transfer surgery and Plastic surgery. It may cost around Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/-. The petitioner has not produced any material evidenced or any estimation before this Tribunal to substantiate the said facts. Hence, in the absence of the material evidence the petitioner is entitled for the compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards future medical expenses.
26. It is the evidence of the P.W.1 that, he is suffering from frequent pain, swelling and deformity at his right foot and right wrist joint. The foot movements are restricted and he is not able to walk without the help of the walker. He is not able to fold or bend his right foot. P.W.1 has deposed that, he is not able to squat on hard surface or use Indian toilet and he is not able to do any physical and manual work. P.W.2 in his evidence deposed that, petitioner undergone emergency operation, 22 SCCH-24 M.V.C.5343/2013 wound debridement with tendon repair with K-wire fixation for the fracture shaft, 1 st metararsal with above knee POP slab application right wrist immobilized with below POP cast. He has deposed that, the petitioner was on regular follow up treatment. He has further deposed that, the X-ray of right ankle and foot shows-united fracture 1 st metatarsal fracture calceaneum with joint space reduction at ankle joint, X-ray right wrist joint shows-united fracture radial styloid process with joint space reduction. P.W.2 has opinioned that, the petitioner has sustained 24.4% disability to the whole body. During the course of cross-examination P.W.1 has admitted that, he is continued in the same job as prior to the accident. The said evidence of P.W.1 discloses that, the petitioner has continued in service and there is no loss of any future earning capacity. Therefore, in the 23 SCCH-24 M.V.C.5343/2013 considered view of this Tribunal, the petitioner is not entitled for the compensation towards future loss of income.
27. The injuries sustained by the petitioner shows that the petitioner must have sustained major pain and suffering. The accident has put him in a lot of discomfort and he has lost the amenities of life. Taking all these facts into consideration, the petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards disability and loss of amenities of life. Thus I am of the considered opinion that, it would be both fair and justifiable to award the compensation under the following heads :
1. Pain and suffering. : Rs.
30,000=00
2. Medical expenses. : Rs.
44,357=00
3. Food and Nourishment : Rs.
expenses. 2,000=00
4. Conveyance charges. : Rs.
5,000=00
24 SCCH-24
M.V.C.5343/2013
5 Attendant charges. Rs.
10,000=00
6. Future Medical Expenses. : Rs.
20,000=00
7. Disability and loss of : Rs.
amenities of life. 30,000=00
Total Rs.
1,41,357=00
So, the petitioner is entitled for the compensation of Rs.1,41,357/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition, till the date of realisation.
28. It is held supra by this Tribunal that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the HGV-Fire Engine bearing Reg.No. KA-42-G-13 by its driver. Respondent No.1 is the insurer and respondent No.2 is the owner of the HGV-Fire Engine bearing Reg.No.KA-42-G-13. Hence, Respondent No.1 and 2 being the insurer and owner are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Respondent No.1 is liable to 25 SCCH-24 M.V.C.5343/2013 indemnify the insured. Accordingly, Issue No.2 is answered partly in the Affirmative. Issue No.3:
29. For the foregoing reasons and the discussions as stated above, the petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed in part with costs.
In result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The claim petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act by the petitioner is hereby allowed in part with costs.
The petitioner is awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,41,357/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty One Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty Seven only) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum
26 SCCH-24 M.V.C.5343/2013 from the date of petition, till deposit.
The Respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation awarded in this case to the petitioner.
Respondent No.1 shall deposit the said compensation amount into the Tribunal within 30 days from the date of the order.
The petitioner is at liberty to withdraw the entire compensation amount with interest.
Advocate's fee is fixed at
Rs.1,000/-.
Draw Award Accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer on online, typed by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 23rd day of January 2015).
(HIREMATH SHOBHARANI BABAYYA ) XXII ASCJ & MEMBER, MACT-Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE 27 SCCH-24 M.V.C.5343/2013 Witnesses examined on behalf of the Petitioner :
P.W.1 - Ravindranath.
P.W.2 - Dr. B.S. Jayaram.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Respondents:
- Nil -
Documents marked on behalf of the Petitioner:
Ex.P.1 - Copy of First Information Report.
Ex.P.2 - Copy of Complaint. Ex.P.3 - Copy of Mahazar. Ex.P.4 - Copy of IMV Report. Ex.P.5 - Copy of Charge Sheet. Ex.P.6 - Copy of Wound Certificate. Ex.P.7 - Discharge Summary.
Ex.P.8 to - Out Patient Slips. 11 Ex.P.12 - Copy of the Driving Licence.
Ex.P.13 - Copy of Pan Card.
Ex.P.14 - Salary Slip.
Ex.P.15 - Salary Certificate.
Ex.P.16 - Leave Certificate.
Ex.P.17 - 2 Advance Bills
& 18
Ex.P.19 - 38 Medical Bills.
Ex.P.20 - 29 Medical Prescriptions.
Ex.P.21 - 3 Photographs.
to 23
Ex.P.24 - CD.
Ex.P.25 - Spot Sketch.
Ex.P.25 - OPD Card.
& 26
Ex.P.27 - Case Sheet.
Ex.P.28 - 4 X-rays.
28 SCCH-24
M.V.C.5343/2013
to 31
Documents marked on behalf of the Respondents:
- Nil -
(HIREMATH SHOBHARANI BABAYYA) XXII ASCJ & MEMBER, MACT-Bengaluru.
AWARD BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA & XXII A.S.C.J, BANGALORE CITY.
M.V.C.No.5343/2013 Petitioner : Mr. A.Ravindranath, S/o Late N. Ashwathaiah, Aged 52 years, R/at No.1, 2nd Cross, 3rd Main, Maruthi Layout, J.P. Nagar, 7th Phase, Bangalore-560 078.
(Represented: By Sri. B.S. Devaraju-
Advocate- Bangalore). 29 SCCH-24 M.V.C.5343/2013
- Versus -
Respondents : 1. Karnataka Government Insurance Department, 14th Floor, & 16th Floor, Vishweshwaraiah Tower, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore-560 001.
(Policy No.121205, Period of Insurance from 25.05.2013 to 24.5.2014).
2. Regional Fire Officer, Bangalore South Range, Bannerghatta Road, Near Bangalore Dairy Circle, Bangalore-560 029.
(Res.No.1:By Sri. Naveen Chandra Shetty, nd 2 Addl. Dist. Govt Pleader Bengaluru.
Res.No.2:By Sri. Prakash C.,-
Advocate- Bengaluru).
WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the Claimant/s above named U/Sec.166 of the M.V.Act, praying for the compensation of Rs.
(Rupees Only) for the injuries sustained by the Claimant/Death of In a Motor Accident by Vehicle NO.
30 SCCH-24 M.V.C.5343/2013 WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before Smt. HIREMATH SHOBHARANI BABAYYA XXII A.S.C.J, Member, MACT, Bangalore in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for Claimant/s and of Sri.Smt. Advocate for respondent.
ORDER The claim petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act by the petitioner is hereby allowed in part with costs.
The petitioner is awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,41,357/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty One Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty Seven only) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition, till deposit.
The Respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation awarded in this case to the petitioner.
Respondent No.1 shall deposit the said compensation amount into the Tribunal within 30 days from the date of the order.
31 SCCH-24 M.V.C.5343/2013 The petitioner is at liberty to withdraw the entire compensation amount with interest.
Advocate's fee is fixed at
Rs.1,000/-.
Draw Award Accordingly.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day of 2015.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA, BANGALORE.
By the
Court fee paid on Claimant /s Respondent
petition 10.00
Court fee paid on
process 00.00
Pleaders Fee
Total RS.
Decree Drafted Scrutinised by MEMBER
MACT,METROPOLITAN AREA
BANGALORE
Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR
32 SCCH-24
M.V.C.5343/2013
Judgment pronounced in open court (Vide separate Judgment) ORDER The claim petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act by the petitioner is hereby allowed in part with costs.
The petitioner is awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,41,357/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty One Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty Seven only) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition, till deposit.
The Respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation awarded in this case to the petitioner.
Respondent No.1 shall deposit the said compensation amount into the Tribunal within 30 days from the date of the order.
The petitioner is at liberty to withdraw the entire compensation amount with interest.
33 SCCH-24
M.V.C.5343/2013
Advocate's fee is fixed at
Rs.1,000/-.
Draw Award Accordingly.
XXII ASCJ & MEMBER,
MACT-Bengaluru.