Bangalore District Court
Shri Harish vs The Iffco-Tokio General Insurance on 19 March, 2015
Before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bangalore
(SCCH-8)
Present: Shri P.J. Somashekar B.A., LL.B.,
XII Additional Small Causes Judge
and Member, M.A.C.T., Bangalore.
Dated this the 19th day of March 2015
M.V.C.No.1594/2013
Petitioner Shri Harish,
Son of Shankaranarayana,
Aged 22 years,
Residing at No.57, 1st Main Road,
2nd Cross, Ramanna Garden,
Ramachandrapura, Vidhyaranyapura,
Bengaluru.
(Shri G.K.Law Firm, Advocates)
V/s
Respondents 1. The IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance
Co.Ltd.,
Shri Shanthi Towers,
No.141, 5th Floor, 3rd Main,
East of NGEF Layout,
Kasturinagar, Bengaluru-560 043.
Policy No.88117145, Date of validity is
from 27.5.2012 to 26.5.2013.
(Shri S.R.Murthy, Advocate)
2. Shri Chinna Krishnaiah,
Son of Late.Muniramaiah,
Residing at No.244, Somanna Gardens,
Vidyaranyapura,
Bengaluru-560 097.
(Shri N.M.Manjunath, Advocate)
2 SCCH-8 MVC 1594/2013
JUDGMENT
This is a claim petition filed by the petitioner against the respondents under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, for seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident.
2. The brief facts of the claim petition are as under:
The petitioner in his claim petition has alleged that, on 10.12.2012 at about 1.00 p.m. he was coming by walk on MVIT college road slowly, cautiously with due care and was crossing the said road from East to West direction, opp. college canteen, when he almost crossed 90% of the said road, the driver of the car bearing registration No.KA-50-N-959 has drove the same in a rash and negligent manner from north to south direction and lost the control of the vehicle and dashed against the petitioner. As a result the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries. So, immediately he was shifted to Krishnadevaraya hospital, wherein he took the first aid treatment and later on he was shifted to Mallige Medical Centre, Bengaluru, wherein he took the treatment as inpatient by spending huge amount.3 SCCH-8 MVC 1594/2013
3. Prior to the accident he was hale and was studying 3rd Semester MCA at MVIT College, Bengaluru and also working as a supervisor at Sony Tours and Travels by getting an income of Rs.9,000/- p.m. Due to the accidental injuries he could not do the work as before. The accident in question was taken place on the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Thereby Chikkajala police have registered the case against the driver of the car in their police station Cr.No.112/2012 for the offences punishable u/s 279 and 337 of IPC and S. 134(a) & (b) R/W S. 187 of IMV Act. The respondents being the insurer and the owner are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
4. In response of the notice, the respondents have appeared through their counsel and filed their written statement.
5.The respondent No.1 being the insurer in its written statement has alleged that the claim petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable in law or on facts and alleged that as on the date of accident the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license and either the owner of the vehicle nor the jurisdictional police have not complied the mandatory provisions u/s 134© and S. 158(6) of the M.V. Act in 4 SCCH-8 MVC 1594/2013 furnishing the better particulars. The respondent No.2 being the owner is knowing fully well that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license has entrusted to drive the vehicle, so he has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, he is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner and the accident in question was taken place on the negligence of the petitioner as the petitioner was crossing the road unmindfully without observing the traffic rules where there was no zebra cross and he was sole architect of the accident and he has denied that the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries and took the treatment by spending huge amount and he has denied the age, avocation and income of the petitioner and prays for reject the claim petition.
6.The respondent No.2 being the owner of the offending vehicle in his evidence he has stated that the claim petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable in law or on facts and he has denied that the column Nos. 3 to 14, 21 and 22 of the claim petition and he has denied that the driver has drove the said car in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner when he was crossing the road. So, he has sustained injuries and 5 SCCH-8 MVC 1594/2013 took the treatment by spending huge amount and further he has alleged that as on the date of alleged accident the driver of the car has drove the same carefully, cautiously by observing all the traffic rules and regulations. But the petitioner has crossed the road without due care and caution, due to the impact the accident was occurred. But he has admitted that he is the owner of the offending vehicle and policy was in existence as on the date of accident and prays for reject the claim petition.
7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following issues are framed.
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he has sustained grievous injuries as mentioned in wound certificate in a road traffic accident on 10.12.2012 at about 1.00 p.m. on MVIT college road, opp.
College canteen, Bangalore due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Car bearing registration No.KA-50-N-959?
2. Whether petitioner is entitled for any compensation? If so to what extent and from whom?
3. What Order or Award?
6 SCCH-8 MVC 1594/2013
8. The petitioner in order to prove his case has examined himself as PW1 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P14 and he has examined two more witnesses on his behalf as PW2 and PW3 and got marked the documents as Ex.P15 to Ex.P18. The respondent No.1 has examined the driver of the car as RW1 and got marked the documents as Ex.R1 and Ex.R2.
9. Heard arguments on both side.
10. My finding on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1: Affirmative Issue No.2: Partly affirmative Issue No.3: As per the final order for the following.
REASONS
11. Issue No.1:
The petitioner being said to be the injured has approached this court on the ground that on 10.12.2012 at about 1.00 p.m. he was crossing the road from East to West direction, opp. to MVIT College Canteen, slowly and cautiously with due care, when he almost crossed 90% of the said road, the driver of the car bearing registration No.KA-50-N-959 has drove the same in a rash and negligent manner from north to south direction and lost the 7 SCCH-8 MVC 1594/2013 control of the vehicle and dashed against the petitioner. As a result the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries. So, immediately he was shifted to Krishnadevaraya hospital, wherein he took the first aid treatment and later on he was shifted to Mallige Medical Centre, Bengaluru, wherein he took the treatment as inpatient by spending huge amount. Thereby, he has filed the instant claim petition against the respondents.
12. The petitioner in order to prove his case has filed his affidavit as his chief examination as PW1, in which he has stated that on 10.12.2012 at about 1.00 p.m. he was proceeding by walk on MVIT college road slowly, cautiously with due care and was crossing the said road from East to West direction, opp. college canteen, almost crossed 90% of the said road, the driver of the car bearing registration No.KA-50-N-959 has drove the same in a rash and negligent manner from north to south direction and lost the control of the vehicle and dashed against him. As a result he was sustained grievous injuries. So, immediately he was shifted to Krishnadevaraya hospital, wherein he took the first aid treatment and later on he was shifted to Mallige Medical Centre, Bengaluru, wherein he took the treatment as inpatient. Thereby, the 8 SCCH-8 MVC 1594/2013 Chickajala Police have registered the case against the driver of the car in their police station Crime No.112/2012 for the offences punishable u/s 279 and 337 of IPC and S. 134(a) & (b) R/s S. 187 of IMV Act. The PW1 in his cross examination has admitted that as on the date of alleged accident he was student in III semester MCA and he has not produced any documents to show that he was the student of MCA and his uncle has lodged the complaint against the offending vehicle driver. Soon after the accident he took the first aid treatment at Krishnadevaraya hospital and he has admitted that he has not produced any discharge summary as he took the treatment at Mallige Hospital and he has admitted that as per Ex.P4 he was proceeding towards east to west direction by walk and there is a road divider in the middle of the road and he has also admitted that he was crossed the road up to the middle of the road at the time of accident and he has also admitted that it is one way road and there were no zebra cross to cross the pedestrian and he has denied that he has crossed without seeing movement of the vehicles and due to his own negligence the accident was occurred.
9 SCCH-8 MVC 1594/2013
13.The respondent No.1 has examined the driver of the offending vehicle as RW1, in his evidence has stated that as on the date of alleged accident he was holding valid and effective driving license marked as Ex,.R1 and he was drove the said car slowly and cautiously on the left side of the road and suddenly the petitioner was came on the road on his negligence the accident was occurred. RW1 in his cross-examination has admitted that the police have filed the charge sheet against him but the accident was not occurred on his own negligence.
14. The petitioner in support of his oral evidence has produced the documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P18. Ex.P2 is the information filed by one Narendranath who is none other than the uncle of the petitioner in which he has stated that on 10.12.2012 at about 1.45 p.m. his brother Shankaranayana has informed through phone that his son met with an accident and got admitted to the Krishnadevaraya hospital, immediately he rushed to the spot and came to know that driver of the car has drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against his brother's son, as a result his son has sustained grievous injuries. So, immediately he has been shifted to Mallige hospital. So, based on 10 SCCH-8 MVC 1594/2013 the information the Chickjala Police have registered the case against the driver of the car in their police station Crime No.112/2012 for the offences punishable u/s 279 and 337 of IPC and S. 184(a) & (b) and R/W S. 187 of IMV Act. Though the learned counsel for the respondent has cross-examined the PW1, but nothing is elicited to disbelieve the evidence of the PW1, though he has suggested that he has crossed the road where there was no zebra cross unmindfully without observing the vehicular movement, so on his own negligence the accident was occurred. For which he has denied the same. If at all the accident was taken place on the negligence of the petitioner nothing is prevented to the driver of the car nor the respondent to file the complaint or challenge the final report filed by the I.O. In the absence of the materials on record it is clear that the accident in question was taken place on the rash and negligent driving of the car driver, that is the reason why they have not filed complaint nor challenge the final report filed by the I.O. Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 are the panchanama and sketch clearly reflects that the accident in question was taken place on the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle driver. Though the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in 11 SCCH-8 MVC 1594/2013 their written statement have taken up the contention that the accident in question was taken place on the negligence of the petitioner. It is an admitted fact that the Ex.P3 clearly reflects that place of accident is in the MVIT college. It is not the public place. Therefore, more caution is required while driving the vehicle. But the reasons best known to the driver of the car has not taken minimum care to avoid the accident, though there is a sufficient space towards eastern side, merely on the ground that the accident was occurred, when the petitioner was crossing the road, it does not mean that the accident was taken place on the negligence of the petitioner. Ex.P5 is clear about the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle driver as he has not hit the vehicle, but he has hit the person who was crossing the road inspite of that the damages occurred as shown in Ex.P5. That itself is clear that the driver of the offending vehicle has drove the same in a rash and negligent manner. Ex.P6 is the wound certificate clearly reflects that the petitioner has sustained injuries said to have been taken place on 10.12.2012. Ex.P9 to Ex.P18 are coupled with the oral evidence of PW1. The respondent No.1 has examined the driver of the car, but his evidence will not help the 12 SCCH-8 MVC 1594/2013 respondent to prove his defence. On the other hand, the petitioner has proved his case through oral and documentary evidence that the accident in question was taken place on the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motor cycle. Hence, I answer this issue in the affirmative.
15. Issue No.2:
The PW1 being the injured in his evidence has stated that on 10.12.2012 at about 1.00 p.m. when he was almost crossed 90% of the road the driver of the car has drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him, as a result, he was fell down and sustained following injuries;
1)Head injury
2)Right Zygoma complex fracture
3)Right Maxilla Fracture
4)Bilateral fracture of Mandible
16.So, immediately he was shifted to Krishnadevaraya hospital wherein he took the first aid treatment later on he was shifted to Mallige hospital, wherein he took the treatment as an inpatient by spending huge amount and he has also underwent surgery. Due to the accidental injuries he is unable to chew the 13 SCCH-8 MVC 1594/2013 hard food, unable to eat cold or hot food, unable to enjoy food and restrained from having food of his choice. So he has to dedicate his time for special maintenance of teeth, so he has to be under continuous follow-up treatment as his other teeth will also loosening as there is lack of grip and support. So, he is suffering from irritation and pain on his teeth.
17.Prior to the accident he was studying third semester MCA at MVIT college, Bengaluru by getting monthly income of Rs.9,000/-, due to the accidental injuries he could not do the work as before. PW1 in his cross-examination has admitted that he has reimbursed 80% of the amount as he has spent for his treatment and has admitted that he has not stated the said facts either in the affidavit or in the claim petition and he has denied that he was working as a supervisor at Sony Tours and Travels and he has admitted that there is no impediment to examine the owner of the said Tours and Travels and he has denied that the medical bills produced before the court are created and fabricated in order to get the compensation and he has also admitted that he has crossed the road where there was no zebra cross and he has also admitted that there was no facility to the pedestrians to cross the road. 14 SCCH-8 MVC 1594/2013
18.PW2 who is the medical record technician at Mallige Medical Centre in his evidence he has stated that the petitioner has got admitted to their hospital and took the treatment as inpatient and got marked Ex.P15 to Ex.P17. In his cross- examination has admitted that the doctor who treated the petitioner is working in their hospital and he has denied that he has created Ex.P16 and Ex.P17 and placed it before the court.
19.PW3 who is Dentist in his evidence has stated that he has examined the petitioner who sustained injuries in a road traffic accident and found the following injuries;
1)Right zygomatic fracture complex fracture
2)Right maxilla fracture
3)Bilateral fracture of mandible
4)Right black eye
20.So, he has underwent surgery relating to the maxillary fracture and plates have been placed during surgery and fractured have healed up and second surgery has been done to remove the plates which were placed for treating the fracture. Now the fracture has been healed up, the petitioner is suffering pain to chew the food. So, chewing food will be reduced to 50% even he 15 SCCH-8 MVC 1594/2013 will not be able to bite hard food throughout his life. Thereby he has sustained permanent disability to the extent of 50%. PW3 in his cross-examination has admitted that he has not treated the petitioner personally and he has admitted that he is unaware of the averments of the petition at the time of his examination. But he has admitted that the fracture is united and he has denied that the petitioner is not sustained any disability, he has falsely stated that the petitioner has sustained disability.
21.PW1 in his evidence has stated that due to the accidental injuries he could not chew the hard food, so, he has sustained permanent disability. The PW3 being the Dentist in his cross- examination has admitted that fracture is united and implants already removed and the petitioner is facing permanent disability due to that he has to suffer through out his life in connection of the biting of hard food. Ex.P6 is the wound certificate clearly reflects that the petitioner has sustained the following injuries;
1)Right Zygomatic complex fracture
2)Right maxilla fracture
3)Bilateral fracture of mandible 16 SCCH-8 MVC 1594/2013
4)Right black eye
22.The injury Nos. 1 to 3 are grievous in nature and the injury No.4 is simple in nature. Ex.P15 is the case sheet, Ex.P17 is the MLC register clearly reflects that the petitioner has took the treatment in connection of the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident for a period of 9 days as inpatient. Ex.P9, Ex.P10 and Ex.P14 clearly reflects that the petitioner has sustained injuries and took the treatment. Ex.P11 to Ex.P13 are clearly reflects that the petitioner has undergone surgery. So, considering the oral and documentary evidence on record it is just and necessary to grant the just compensation under the following heads;
a)Pain and suffering.
The PW1 being the injured in his evidence has clearly stated about his difficulties due to the accidental injuries. According to him he has sustained fracture of right zygomatic, right maxilla and fracture of mandible. Thereby he took the treatment for a period of 9 days. PW3 being the Dentist in his evidence has stated that due to the accidental injuries the petitioner has took the treatment as inpatient and outpatient. So, he might have sustained pain and 17 SCCH-8 MVC 1594/2013 agony for which, it is just and necessary to award compensation of Rs.30,000/- for the above head, it will meet the ends of justice. Hence, Rs.30,000/- is awarded for the above head.
b) Loss of income during laid up period:
The PW1 being the injured in his evidence has stated that prior to the accident he was hale and healthy and student of III semester MCA and also working as a supervisor at Sony Tours and Travels by getting monthly income of Rs.9,000/-. But the reasons best known to him has not examined the author of Ex.P8 to show that he was working as a supervisor and getting monthly income of Rs.9,000/-. In the absence of the materials on record, it is very difficult to believe the income of the petitioner as alleged in the claim petition. So considering the age of the petitioner and his educational qualification atleast he would earning income of Rs.6,000/- per month. So, it is just and necessary to consider the monthly notional income of Rs.6,000/- it will meet the ends of justice. Ex.P17 is clear that the petitioner has took the treatment as inpatient for a period of 9 days. Even after discharge he took the treatment as outpatient. So, he might have lost income for a 18 SCCH-8 MVC 1594/2013 period of two months. So two months income comes to Rs.12,000/-. So Rs.12,000/- is granted for the above head.
c) Medical expenses The PW1 being the injured in his evidence has stated that soon after the accident he got admitted to the Krishnadevaraya hospital, wherein he took the first aid treatment later on he was shifted to Mallige hospital, wherein he took the treatment as inpatient by spending Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical expenses.
But in his cross-examination has admitted that he has reimbursed 80% of the amount towards the treatment taken by him at Mallige hospital. Though the respondent No.1 has disputed the medical bills produced by the petitioner marked as Ex.P14. But nothing is placed on record to show that the medical bills produced by the petitioner are also reimbursed, nor created or fabricated documents. In the absence of the materials on record it is just and necessary to consider Rs.17,668/- for the above head. So, Rs.17,668/- is grated to the petitioner.
d) Loss of future earning:
The PW1 being the injured in his evidence has clearly stated that he has sustained grievous injuries as shown in the wound 19 SCCH-8 MVC 1594/2013 certificate. So, he was underwent surgery. Thereby he could not chew or bite hard food even he is unable to eat, cold or hot food, he has dedicate his time for special maintenance of teeth, he is unable to enjoy food and restrained from having food of his choice.
PW3 being the Dentist in his evidence has stated that the petitioner has sustained permanent disability to the extent of 50% as his function of chewing food will be reduced and he is not able to bite the hard food through out his life. But he has admitted that fracture is united. So, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials on record as well as admission of PW3 it is necessary to consider the whole body disability to the extent of 15% as the PW3 being the Dentist in his evidence nowhere stated how the disability as stated in the affidavit affects the functional disability of the petitioner. In the absence of the evidence and materials on record, it is necessary to consider the whole body disability is 15% instead of 50% as stated by the PW3 it will meet the ends of justice. Ex.P6, Ex.P9, Ex.P16 and Ex.P17 clearly reflects that as on the date of alleged accident the petitioner was aged about 22 years. The petitioner in his evidence also stated that his age was 22 years as on the date of alleged accident. 20 SCCH-8 MVC 1594/2013 Therefore, the petitioner age is taken into consideration as 22 years as on the date of alleged accident. So by virtue of the Sarlaverma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd., in 2009 ACJ 1298 the multiplier applicable is 18. So the loss of future earning is works out as under;
Rs.6,000X12X18X15/100=Rs.1,94,400/-.
Hence, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.1,94,400/- for the above head.
e) Loss of amenities, conveyance, food and nourishment, attendant charges:
The PW1 being the injured in his evidence has clearly stated about the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident and he has also stated about the treatment as inpatient and outpatient. PW3 being the Dentist has clearly stated about the complaints and disabilities of the petitioner due to the accidental injuries. So considering the injuries sustained by the petitioner as well as duration of treatment, it is just and necessary to grant Rs.15,000/- for the above head, it will meet the ends of justice. So Rs.15,000/- is granted for the above head.
23. Thus the total award stands as follows: 21 SCCH-8 MVC 1594/2013
1.Pain and suffering Rs. 30,000-00
2.Loss of income during laid up Rs. 12,000-00 period
3.Medical bills Rs. 17,668-00
4.Loss of future earning Rs.1,94,400-00
5.Loss of amenities, conveyance, Rs. 15,000-00 food and nourishment, attendant charges etc. Total Rs.2,69,068-00
24. The respondent No.1 being the insurer in its written statement has taken up the contention that as on the date of alleged accident the offending vehicle driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence. Ex.R1 is the driving licence which belongs to the driver of the offending vehicle clearly reflects that as on the date of alleged accident he was holding valid and effective driving licence. Even Ex.P7 nowhere appears that as on the date of alleged accident the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence. Therefore arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent on this aspect holds no water.
25.The respondent No.1 in its written statement has admitted about the issuance of the policy infavour of the second respondent in respect of offending vehicle. But he has not shown the period of policy. But whereas the petitioner in the cause title of 22 SCCH-8 MVC 1594/2013 the claim petition has shown the policy number and its validity from 27.5.2012 to 26.5.2013. The accident was occurred on
10.12.2012. So, as on the date of alleged accident the policy was in existence. So, one thing is clear that as on the date of alleged accident the driver of the offending vehicle was holding valid and effective driving licence and the policy was in existence.
26.The respondent No.1 in its written statement has taken up the contention that the accident in question was taken place on the negligence of the petitioner as he was crossing the road unmindfully without observing the flow of traffic where there was no zebra crossing and the petitioner was sole architect of the accident and no actionable negligence can be attributed against the driver of the car. So, the petitioner was solely responsible for the cause of accident. The learned counsel for the respondent while canvassing his arguments has submitted that the petitioner has crossed the road where there was no zebra crossing. So, on his own negligence the accident was occurred. Now the question arises whether the place of accident comes under the definition of 'public place'. Therefore, this court drawn its attention on S.2 (34) of M.V. act reads like thus;
23 SCCH-8 MVC 1594/2013
S.2 (34) "Public place" means a road, street, way or other place, whether a through fare or not, to which the public have a right of access, and includes any place or stand at which passengers are picked up or set down by a stage carriage;
27.The above provision is clear a road, street, way or other place whether a through fare or not, to which the public have a right of access and includes any place or stand at which passengers are picked up or set down by a stage carriage.
28.In the instant case admittedly it is not the case of the respondent that the place of accident is comes under the purview of public place as the Ex.P3 is the panchanama drawn by the I.O. clearly reflects that the place of accident is comes within the purview of MVIT college compound. So, the road meant for parents of the student and students to pick up and drop and the respondent nothing is placed on record to show that place of accident comes within purview of public place. So, one thing is clear that where the accident was taken place is not pick up nor drop the passengers. It is meant for the purpose of students to pick up and drop. That is the reason why the I.O. has shown the place of accident is with in the compound of college as the Ex.P3 24 SCCH-8 MVC 1594/2013 reveals that the accident occurred within the premises of college. Therefore the question of laying zebra cross does not arise as the said road is not comes within the destination of public place to lay the zebra cross nor to take defence that the petitioner was crossed the road as there was no zebra cross. If the alleged road comes within the purview of public place then the arguments would have accepted. Though the learned counsel for the respondent has drawn the court attention on the decision reported in ILR 1998 Kar 1934, ILR 2004 KAR 1104, ACJ 2005 SC 1323, 2005 ACJ 344 (Andhrapradesh) and ILR 2000 KAR 2009.
29.On perusal of the said decisions, I do respect to the decisions relied by the learned counsel for the respondent. But the place of accident is not comes witnin the definition of 'public place'. So, the question of apply principles as appeared in the above decision's does not arise. Even the learned counsel for the respondent has not at all elicited anything from the mouth of the witnesses that the place of accident is public place and there are zebra cross to cross the pedestrians. If that is so, the matter would have different. But nothing is place don record or elicited anything relating to the zebra cross, that too, in the college 25 SCCH-8 MVC 1594/2013 premises. Therefore, one thing is clear that the place of accident is not comes within the definition of public place and it was not meant for passengers to pick up or drop as it is meant for students and parents to pick up and drop. Therefore, the facts and circumstances of the present case and the decisions relied by the learned counsel for the respondent are different. So, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. But in view of the valid insurance policy the respondent No.1 alone is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. In the result, the issue No.2 is answered as partly in the affirmative.
30. Issue No.3:
In view of my finding on issue Nos.1 & 2, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner under section 166 of M.V. Act is partly allowed, with costs. The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,69,068/- together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till its realisation. 26 SCCH-8 MVC 1594/2013
The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. In view of the valid insurance policy the respondent No.1 being the insurer shall pay the compensation amount with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till its realisation within a period of 30 days from the date of this order.
On deposit of the compensation amount together with interest, 40% of the amount shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner in any nationalised or scheduled bank of his choice for a period of three years and the remaining 60% shall be released to him by means of A/c payee cheque on proper identification. The petitioner is at liberty to withdraw the periodical interest accrued on his deposit amount from time to time.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.500/-.
Draw award accordingly.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcript thereof, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 19th day of March 2015.
(P.J. Somashekar), XII Addl. Judge-Member, MACT, Bangalore.27 SCCH-8 MVC 1594/2013
ANNEXURE List of the witnesses examined on behalf of petitioner:
PW1 Shri Harish C. 12.6.2014 PW2 Shri Nagaraj 5.12.2014 PW3 Shri Chaitanya Babu 24.1.2015
List of the documents exhibited on behalf of petitioner:
Ex.P1 True copy of FIR
Ex.P2 True copy of Complaint
Ex.P3 True copy of Panchanama
Ex.P4 True copy of Sketch
Ex.P5 True copy of IMV report
Ex.P6 True copy of Wound certificate
Ex.P7 True copy of charge sheet
Ex.P8 Employment certificate
Ex.P9 Letter issued by the Mallige hospital
Ex.P10 Photographs
Ex.P11 X-ray films
Ex.P12 CT scan report
Ex.P13 CT Scan films
Ex.P14 Medical bills
Ex.P15 Authorisation letter
Ex.P16 MLC extract
Ex.P17 Case sheet
Ex.P18 X-ray film
28 SCCH-8 MVC 1594/2013
List of the witnesses examined on behalf of respondents:
RW1 Shri Channakrishnaiah 25.2.2015 List of the documents marked on behalf of respondents:
Ex.R1 Driving license
(P.J. Somashekar),
XII Addl. Judge-Member, MACT,
Bangalore.