Bangalore District Court
In Mvc Naveen @ vs In 1.Mohammed Ghouse Peer on 16 September, 2015
BEFORE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE. (SCCH-11)
DATED THIS 16th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015
PRESENT: SRI. GANAPATI GURUSIDDA BADAMI, B.A,LL.B(SPL).
I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXVII ACMM
M.V.C No.6637/2013 to MVC No.6642/2013
PETITIONER IN MVC Naveen @
6637/2013: B.S.Naveen Kumar,
S/o. Shivananda,
Aged about 28 years,
R/a No.66, 6th Main,
Maruthi Nagar,
Kamakshipalya,
Bangalore - 79.
(Sri. B.S.Manjunath ------- Advocate)
PETITIONER IN MVC Shobha,
6638/2013: D/o. Shankarappa,
Aged about 24 years,
R/at No.58, 5th Main,
6th Cross, Vrushabhavati Nagar,
Kamakshipalya,
Bangalore - 79.
(Sri. B.S.Manjunath ------- Advocate)
PETITIONER IN MVC Shyla.V,
6639/2013: W/o Late, Veeranna,
Aged about 27 years,
R/a No.58, 5th Main,
6th Cross, Vrushabhavati Nagar,
Kamakshipalya,
Bangalore - 79.
(Sri. B.S.Manjunath ------- Advocate)
SCCH-11 2 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640
6641, 6642/2013
PETITIONER IN MVC Kum. Priya,
6640/2013: D/o. Late. Veeranna,
Aged about 9 years,
R/a No.58, 5th Main,
6th Cross, Vrushabhavati Nagar,
Kamakshipalya,
Bangalore - 79.
(Since minor reptd. by
Mother & natural guardian
Smt. Syla.V)
(Sri. B.S.Manjunath ------- Advocate)
PETITIONER IN MVC Sharanappa.S.S,
6641/2013: S/o Late. Shankarappa,
Aged about 23 years,
R/a No.58, 5th Main,
6th Cross, Vrushabhavati Nagar,
Kamakshipalya,
Bangalore - 79.
(Sri. B.S.Manjunath ------- Advocate)
PETITIONER IN MVC 1. Smt.Basamma,
6642/2013: W/o Late. Shankarappa,
Aged about 48 years,
2. Sharanappa. S.S,
S/o. Late Shankarappa,
Aged about 23 years.
Both are residing at:
R/a No.58, 5th Main,
6th Cross, Vrushabhavati Nagar,
Kamakshipalya,
Bangalore - 79.
(Sri. B.S.Manjunath ------- Advocate)
SCCH-11 3 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640
6641, 6642/2013
- V/S -
RESPONDENTS IN 1.Mohammed Ghouse Peer,
MVC No.6637/13, S/o. Abdul Sab,
MVC No.6638/13, (Since dead reptd. by his LR's)
MVC No.6639/13,
MVC No.6640/13, (a) Mohammed Nayaz Ahmed,
MVC No.6641/13, S/o. Late. Mohammed Ghouse Peer,
MVC No.6642/13: Aged about 50 years.
(b) Mohammed Nawaz Ahmed,
S/o. Late. Mohammed Ghouse Peer,
Aged about 46 years.
(c) Mohammed Hayaz,
S/o. Late. Mohammed Ghouse Peer,
Aged about 44 years.
All are residing at:
Hanchikuppe village,
V.G.Doddi Post,
Magadi Taluk,
Ramanagar District.
(Sri. T. Mohan ---- Advocate)
2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
T.P.Hub, 6th Floor,
Krishi Bhavan, Hudson Circle,
Bangalore - 01.
(Sri. Janardhan Reddy ------- Advocate)
SCCH-11 4 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640
6641, 6642/2013
JUDGMENT
Petitioners have filed these claim petitions claiming the compensation for the injuries sustained by them and death of the deceased Shankarappa in the road traffic accident.
2) It is averred that, on 14.10.2013 at about 11:30pm, the petitioners in M.V.C.No.6637/2013, 6638/2013, 6639/2013, 6640/2013, 6641/2013 and deceased Shankarappa were traveling in the car bearing No. KA-01-AA-6036 along with their family members from Tiptur to Bangalore via Magadi on Magadi- Bangalore Road and driver of said car was driving the same slowly and cautiously on the left side of the road. When they came near Kadabagere gate, Dasanapura Hobli, Bangalore North, at that time, the driver of TATA Sumo vehicle bearing No.KA-22-M-4977 has driven the said vehicle from opposite direction on the wrong side in rash and negligent manner endangering human life with high speed without observing traffic rules and regulations and dashed to the car.
SCCH-11 5 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640
6641, 6642/2013
3) Due to said impact, all inmates of the car sustained grievous injuries and deceased Shankarappa succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The injured claimants were shifted to Lakshmi Multi Specialty hospital, Sunkadakatte, Bangalore, wherein they have taken treatment.
4) Petitioner Shobha sustained fracture of left ulna, deep cut lacerated wound over mid fore head measuring 6x2cm, cut lacerated wound over left eyebrow measuring 5x2cm, multiple abrasions over left hand. She was admitted in Lakshmi Multi Specialty hospital, Sunkadakatte, Bangalore wherein x-rays were taken and fracture were confirmed and she undergone surgery and internal fixation and other injuries were treated with suturing and dressing and discharged on 18.10.2013 with an advice for regular follow up treatment and bed rest and she is still undergoing follow up treatment.
5) Petitioner Shyla.V sustained blunt injury over left shoulder region, blunt injury over left lower back region. She SCCH-11 6 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640 6641, 6642/2013 was admitted in Lakshmi Multi Specialty hospital, Sunkadakatte, Bangalore wherein she was treated with dressing and discharged on 17.10.2013 with an advice for regular follow up treatment and bed rest and she is still undergoing follow up treatment.
6) Petitioner Priya sustained fracture of both bones of left hand, abrasion over forehead and blunt injury over right side cheek. She was admitted in Lakshmi Multi Specialty hospital, Sunkadakatte, Bangalore wherein x-rays were taken and fracture were confirmed and she was treated with closed reduction and other injuries were treated with dressing and discharged on 16.10.2013 with an advice for regular follow up treatment and bed rest and she is still undergoing follow up treatment.
7) Petitioner Sharanappa.S.S sustained L-1 compression fracture with paraplegia. He was admitted in Lakshmi Multi Specialty hospital, Sunkadakatte, Bangalore wherein x-rays were taken and fracture were confirmed and he was treated conservatively with physiotherapy and SCCH-11 7 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640 6641, 6642/2013 discharged on 29.10.2013 with an advice for regular follow up treatment, physiotherapy and bed rest and he is still undergoing follow up treatment.
8) Petitioner Naveen sustained fracture of right femur, fracture of left humerus, gross heamoperitoneum with grade IV spleenic laceration, multiple abrasions over face and right ear bleeding. He was admitted in Lakshmi Multi Specialty hospital, Sunkadakatte, Bangalore wherein x-rays were taken and fracture were confirmed and he undergone surgery and implants fixation for left humerus and right femur fractures and underwent spleenectomy+peritoneal closure and other injuries were conservatively with suturing and dressing and discharged on 30.10.2013 with an advice for regular follow up treatment and bed rest and he is still undergoing follow up treatment.
9) The claimants have spent huge amount towards medical expenses, conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges and they have to incur the expenses in future for follow up treatment. Petitioner Naveen was hale and healthy SCCH-11 8 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640 6641, 6642/2013 and he was aged about 28 years and was working car driver at Jayant Tours and Resorts Pvt.Ltd No.L-121, 5th Sector, Ring Road, HSR Layout, Bangalore and drawing salary of Rs.12,000/- per month. Due to the accidental injuries, he has sustained permanent disability and he is not attending his duty and he is not getting his income.
10) Petitioner Shobha was hale and healthy and she was aged about 24 years and she was working as tailor at Prajawal garments behind Tirumala hospital, Kamakshipalya, Bangalore and she was drawing salary of Rs.6,500 per month and due to the accidental injuries, she is unable to attend her duty and she is not getting her income.
11) Petitioner Shyla.V was hale and healthy prior to the accident and she was aged about 27 years and was working as tailor at Prajawal garments behind Tirumala hospital, Kamakshipalya, Bangalore and she was drawing salary of Rs.6,500 per month and due to the accidental injuries, she is unable to attend her duty and she is not getting her income.
SCCH-11 9 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640
6641, 6642/2013
12) Prior to the accident, petitioner Sharanappa.S.S was hale and healthy and he was aged about 23 years and was working as CNC operator, Karnataka CNC Tech Pvt.Ltd No.58, 5th Main, 6th cross, Vrushabhavati Nagar, Kamakshipalya, Bangalore and drawing salary of Rs.9,000/- per month and due to the accidental injuries, he has sustained permanent disability and he is unable to attend his duty and he is not getting his income.
13) Prior to the accident, petitioner Priya was hale and healthy and she was aged about 9 years and she was student studying in 4th std in Maruthi School, Kamakshipalya Bangalore and due to the accidental injuries, she sustained permanent disability and she has not attended classes till today and accidental injuries have affected her educational and bright future.
14) Prior to the accident, the deceased Shankarappa was hale and healthy and he was aged about 55 years and he was working as blacksmith with Sri. Venkataramacharya, proprietor of Furnace situated opposite to Fair Price Shop, 5th SCCH-11 10 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640 6641, 6642/2013 Cross, 2nd Main, Kamakshipalya, Bangalore and drawing the salary of Rs.12,000/- per month. The deceased was contributing entire earnings to his family and petitioners were solely depending upon income of deceased for their livelihood and maintenance.
15) Due to the accidental injuries, the petitioners have been put to deep mental agony, pain and sufferings, untold hardship and the accidental injuries have caused permanent disability. The jurisdictional police have registered the case against the driver of offending vehicle in Cr.No.631/2013 for the offences punishable under section 279,338,304-A of IPC. The respondent No1 is owner and respondent No2 is insurer of offending vehicle and both are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners have claimed the compensation under different heads in their respective claim petitions.
16) The legal heirs of the respondent No1 has filed their written statement and denied the contents of claim petition. It is admitted that, respondent No1 is R.C.Owner of SCCH-11 11 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640 6641, 6642/2013 offending vehicle. The driver of offending vehicle was holding valid and effective driving licence and said vehicle was having valid permit. The respondent No1 insured his vehicle with respondent No2 under policy bearing No.0722013113P102703355 which was valid from 2.8.2013 to 1.8.2014 which was in force as on the date of the accident. The respondent No1 died during the pendency of claim petition and his legal heirs are brought on record. If at all petitioners are entitled for any compensation, the respondent No2 is liable to pay the same. The compensation claimed by the petitioners is fanciful and whimsical and they are not entitled for any compensation. Therefore, it is prayed for dismissal of claim petitions with costs.
17) The respondent No.2 has filed written statement and denied the contents of claim petitions. It is contended that, the petitioners are neither residents of Bangalore nor working in Bangalore and the claim petitions are not falling within jurisdiction of this tribunal and claim petitions are liable to be dismissed as per recent judgment of Hon'ble High Court in M.F.A.No.1458/2007 between New India Assurance SCCH-11 12 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640 6641, 6642/2013 Company Ltd V/s Kannappa and Subhadra and others V/s Pankajh and others ILR 2013 KAR 102. The petitioners have not impleaded owner and insurer of car bearing No. KA- 01-AA-6036 as party to these claim petitions and claim petitions are liable to be dismissed for non joinder of necessary parties. The respondent No2 admitted about issuance of insurance policy bearing No.072201/31/13/102703355 in favour of respondent No1 in respect of TATA Sumo vehicle bearing No.KA-22-M-4977. But the liability of the respondent No2 is subject to the terms and conditions of insurance policy. The respondent No1 has not complied the mandatory requirements of section 134(c) of Motor Vehicles Act and jurisdictional police have failed to forward documents to the respondent No2 and have not complied the mandatory requirements of section 158(6) of Motor Vehicles Act. The petitioners have registered false case against the offending vehicle in order to claim the compensation from the respondent No2 by suppressing material facts and created false story against the respondent No2 even though alleged accident is not caused by offending vehicle. If any award passed by this tribunal, the respondent SCCH-11 13 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640 6641, 6642/2013 No1 alone is liable to pay the compensation. The alleged accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of car bearing No. KA-01-AA-6036 and at the time of alleged accident, passengers more than seating capacity were traveling in the said car and driver of car lost control and met with an accident. But these facts are suppressed by the petitioners in collusion with police and insured and created false case against the respondent No2. The respondent No1 entrusted the offending vehicle to such driver who was not holding valid and effective driving licence and transport endorsement to drive the said vehicle. The respondent No1 violated terms and conditions of insurance policy and section 3 of Motor Vehicles Act and respondent No1 has not obtained permit and fitness certificate to run the said vehicle on public road and violated section 56 of Motor Vehicles Act. The alleged accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of car bearing No. KA-01- AA-6036 who driven car without observing traffic rules and regulations and came to the extreme right side of the road and dashed to the offending vehicle and met with an accident and at the time of accident, inmates of car and driver were SCCH-11 14 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640 6641, 6642/2013 talking each other without observing traffic rules and regulations. But the petitioners have suppressed these material facts and police have registered false case against the respondent No2 to get the compensation by the petitioners from respondent No2 and police have not conducted proper investigation and filed charge sheet against offending vehicle. As per hand sketch map and motor vehicle inspection report, it is clear that, alleged accident taken place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of car only. The respondent No2 may be permitted to take all defences available to the insured under section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act, in case, he fails to contest the claim petitions in collusion with petitioners. In the event of any award passed against the respondent No2, the rate of interest may be awarded at 6% per annum as per law laid down by Hon'ble High Court and no interest shall be payable for future medical expenses and future loss of income and interest is to be paid only over the amount which has become payable on the date of award as per law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in R.D.Hattangadi V/s Pest Control India Ltd AIR 1995 SC
755. The compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly SCCH-11 15 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640 6641, 6642/2013 excessive, and it has no rationale. Therefore, it is prayed for dismissal of claim petitions with costs.
18) Petitioner in M.V.C.No.6637/2013 himself examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 12. Petitioner in M.V.C.No.6638/2013 herself examined as PW2 and got marked Ex.P.13 to 17. Petitioner in M.V.C.No.6639/2013 and 6640/2013 herself examined as PW3 and got marked ExP.18 to 26. Petitioner in M.V.C.No.6641/2013 himself examined as PW4 and got marked ExP.27 to 32. Petitioner in M.V.C.No.6642/2013 herself examined as PW5 and got marked ExP.33 to 37. Petitioners examined Dr.Avinash Parthasarthy and Sri.Narasimha Swamy S/o Narasimaiah as PW6 and 7 and got marked ExP.38 to 101 and closed their evidence. The respondent No2 examined Smt.Kusuma D/o Kemparangaiah as RW1 and closed the evidence. The legal heirs of respondent No1 examined Sri.Mohammed Nayaz S/o Mohammed Ghouse Peer as RW2 and got marked ExR.1 and 2 and closed the evidence.
SCCH-11 16 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640
6641, 6642/2013
19) Heard the arguments of learned counsel for petitioners and learned counsel for respondents and perused the evidence on record.
20) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues have been framed:
M.V.C.No.6637/2013
1. Whether the petitioner proves that on 14.10.2013 at about 11.30 pm., when petitioner and his family members were proceeding in car bearing No.KA-01-
AA-6036 from Tiptur to Bangalore on Magadi-Bangalore road slowly and cautiously on the left side of the road, at that time, driver of TATA Sumo vehicle bearing No.KA-22- M-4977 driven the same in rash and negligent manner endangering human life with high speed on the wrong side and dashed to the car by which he sustained grievous injuries?
2. Whether petitioner is entitled for the compensation prayed in the claim petition? If so, what is quantum of the compensation and from whom?
3. What order or award?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES:
1) Whether respondent No.2 proves that the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?SCCH-11 17 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640
6641, 6642/2013
2) Whether respondent No.2 proves that as on the date of accident, the driver of offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence and said vehicle was not having permit and fitness certificate and respondent No.1 violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy ?
M.V.C.No.6638/2013
1. Whether the petitioner proves that on 14.10.2013 at about 11.30 pm., when petitioner and her family members were proceeding in car bearing No.KA-01- AA-6036 from Tiptur to Bangalore on Magadi-Bangalore road slowly and cautiously on the left side of the road, at that time, driver of TATA Sumo vehicle bearing No.KA-22- M-4977 driven the same in rash and negligent manner endangering human life with high speed on the wrong side and dashed to the car by which she sustained grievous injuries?
2. Whether petitioner is entitled for the compensation prayed in the claim petition? If so, what is quantum of the compensation and from whom?
3. What order or award?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES:
1) Whether respondent No.2 proves that the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
2) Whether respondent No.2 proves that as on the date of accident, the driver of offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence and said vehicle was not having permit and fitness certificate and respondent No.1 violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy ?SCCH-11 18 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640
6641, 6642/2013 M.V.C.No.6639/2013
1. Whether the petitioner proves that on 14.10.2013 at about 11.30 pm., when petitioner and her family members were proceeding in car bearing No.KA-01- AA-6036 from Tiptur to Bangalore on Magadi-Bangalore road slowly and cautiously on the left side of the road, at that time, driver of TATA Sumo vehicle bearing No.KA-22- M-4977 driven the same in rash and negligent manner endangering human life with high speed on the wrong side and dashed to the car by which he sustained grievous injuries?
2. Whether petitioner is entitled for the compensation prayed in the claim petition? If so, what is quantum of the compensation and from whom?
3. What order or award?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES:
1) Whether respondent No.2 proves that the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
2) Whether respondent No.2 proves that as on the date of accident, the driver of offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence and said vehicle was not having permit and fitness certificate and respondent No.1 violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy ?
M.V.C.No.6640/2013
1. Whether the petitioner proves that on 14.10.2013 at about 11.30 pm., when petitioner and his family members were proceeding in car bearing No.KA-01- SCCH-11 19 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640 6641, 6642/2013 AA-6036 from Tiptur to Bangalore on Magadi-Bangalore road slowly and cautiously on the left side of the road, at that time, driver of TATA Sumo vehicle bearing No.KA-22- M-4977 driven the same in rash and negligent manner endangering human life with high speed on the wrong side and dashed to the car by which he sustained grievous injuries?
2. Whether petitioner is entitled for the compensation prayed in the claim petition? If so, what is quantum of the compensation and from whom?
3. What order or award?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES:
1) Whether respondent No.2 proves that the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
2) Whether respondent No.2 proves that as on the date of accident, the driver of offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence and said vehicle was not having permit and fitness certificate and respondent No.1 violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy ?
M.V.C.No.6641/2013
1. Whether the petitioner proves that on 14.10.2013 at about 11.30 pm., when petitioner and his family members were proceeding in car bearing No.KA-01- AA-6036 from Tiptur to Bangalore on Magadi-Bangalore road slowly and cautiously on the left side of the road, at that time, driver of TATA Sumo vehicle bearing No.KA-22- M-4977 driven the same in rash and negligent manner endangering human life with high speed on the wrong SCCH-11 20 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640 6641, 6642/2013 side and dashed to the car by which he sustained grievous injuries?
2. Whether petitioner is entitled for the compensation prayed in the claim petition? If so, what is quantum of the compensation and from whom?
3. What order or award?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES:
1) Whether respondent No.2 proves that the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
2) Whether respondent No.2 proves that as on the date of accident, the driver of offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence and said vehicle was not having permit and fitness certificate and respondent No.1 violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy ?
M.V.C.No.6642/2013
1. Whether the petitioners prove that on 14.10.2013 at about 11.30 pm., when deceased Shankarappa and his family members were proceeding in car bearing No.KA-01-AA-6036 from Tiptur to Bangalore on Magadi-Bangalore road slowly and cautiously on the left side of the road, at that time, driver of TATA Sumo vehicle bearing No.KA-22-M-4977 driven the same in rash and negligent manner endangering human life with high speed on the wrong side and dashed to the car by which he sustained grievous injuries?
2. Whether petitioners are entitled for the compensation prayed in the claim petition? If so, what is quantum of the compensation and from whom? SCCH-11 21 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640
6641, 6642/2013
3. What order or award?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES:
1) Whether respondent No.2 proves that the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
2) Whether respondent No.2 proves that as on the date of accident, the driver of offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence and said vehicle was not having permit and fitness certificate and respondent No.1 violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy ?
21) My findings on the above issues are as under:
M.V.C.No.6637/2013:-
Issue No.1 Affirmative;
Addl.Issue No.1 Negative;
Addl.Issue No.2 Negative;
Issue No.2 Partly Affirmative; the petitioner is
entitled to compensation of
Rs.7,63,752/- with interest @ 6% p.a.
from the date of petition till complete
realisation, from respondent No.2.
Issue No.3 As per final order:
M.V.C.No.6638/2013:-
Issue No.1 Affirmative;
Addl.Issue No.1 Negative;
SCCH-11 22 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640
6641, 6642/2013
Addl.Issue No.2 Negative;
Issue No.2 Partly Affirmative; the petitioner is
entitled to compensation of
Rs.2,41,354/- with interest @ 6% p.a.
from the date of petition till complete
realisation, from respondent No.2.
Issue No.3 As per final order:
M.V.C.No.6639/2013:-
Issue No.1 Affirmative;
Addl.Issue No.1 Negative;
Addl.Issue No.2 Negative;
Issue No.2 Partly Affirmative; the petitioner is
entitled to global compensation of Rs.
20,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from
the date of petition till complete
realisation, from respondent No.2.
Issue No.3 As per final order:
M.V.C.No.6640/2013:-
Issue No.1 Affirmative;
Addl.Issue No.1 Negative;
Addl.Issue No.2 Negative;
Issue No.2 Partly Affirmative; the petitioner is
entitled to compensation of
Rs.1,51,317/- with interest @ 6% p.a.
from the date of petition till complete
realisation, from respondent No.2.
SCCH-11 23 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640
6641, 6642/2013
Issue No.3 As per final order:
M.V.C.No.6641/2013:-
Issue No.1 Affirmative;
Addl.Issue No.1 Negative;
Addl.Issue No.2 Negative;
Issue No.2 Partly Affirmative; the petitioner is
entitled to compensation of
Rs.3,36,745/- with interest @ 6% p.a.
from the date of petition till complete
realisation, from respondent No.2.
Issue No.3 As per final order:
M.V.C.No.6642/2013:-
Issue No.1 Affirmative;
Addl.Issue No.1 Negative;
Addl.Issue No.2 Negative;
Issue No.2 Partly Affirmative; the petitioner is
entitled to compensation of
Rs.7,00,956/- with interest @ 6% p.a.
from the date of petition till complete
realisation, from respondent No.2.
Issue No.3 As per final order, for the following :
REASONS
22) ISSUE No.1 IN ALL CASES:- As per the evidence
of PW.1 to 4, on 14.10.2013 at about 11.30 pm., they were SCCH-11 24 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640 6641, 6642/2013 proceeding along with deceased Shankarappa in car bearing Regn.No.KA-01-AA-6036 from Tiptur to Bangalore on Magadi- Bangalore road and the driver of the said car driven the car slowly and cautiously on left side of the road, at that time, the driver of Tata Sumo bearing Regn.No.KA-22-M-4977 driven the same in rash or negligent manner endangering to human life from opposite direction and dashed against the car. They have stated that, in the said accident, they sustained grievous injuries and deceased Shankarappa sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. They also stated that, accident has taken due to rash or negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. The jurisdictional police have registered the case against the driver of the said vehicle for the offences punishable under Section 279, 338, 304 (A) of IPC.
23) In the cross-examination of PW.1, he has stated that, as on the date of accident, he was proceeding in Indica car from Tiptur to Bengaluru and they were 5 persons and one child by name Priya including him and they were proceeding from Tiptur to Bengaluru. He has stated that, as SCCH-11 25 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640 6641, 6642/2013 on the date of accident, he was holding driving licence to drive the car and he has produced driving licence before this court.
He has stated that, Tata Sumo was proceeding from Bengaluru towards Magadi and they were proceeding from Magadi to Bengaluru. As per hand sketch map, there is road turn at the place of accident and the distance between Tiptur to Bengaluru is 135 KM. In the cross-examination PW.1, he denied the suggestion that, due to long journey and physical strain, he driven his Indica car in rash or negligent manner and dashed to the Tata sumo vehicle and due to his negligence, accident has taken place. In the cross- examination of PW.1 by learned counsel for respondent No.2, he had admitted that, there is head on collusion in between two vehicles, but they were proceeding on left side and there were no other vehicles in front of his vehicle at the time of accident and he had seen Tata sumo vehicle at the distance of 20 feet. He has admitted that, the nature of vehicle coming from opposite direction can be identified on the basic of focus lamp. He has denied the suggestion that, even though, he knew about the vehicle coming from opposite direction, he has taken his vehicle towards right side and due to his SCCH-11 26 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640 6641, 6642/2013 negligence, accident has taken place. He has denied suggestion that, even though, accident taken place due to his negligence, PW.3 lodged false complaint against the driver of Tata Sumo vehicle and he is responsible for the accident. PW.2 has denied in her cross-examination that, she has not seen the vehicle at the time of accident. She has stated that, PW.1 is her husband who was driving Indica car and she sat on the back seat of Indica car. She has denied that, the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent act of her husband. In the cross-examination of PW.2 by the learned counsel for respondent No.1, she has admitted that, the accident taken place due to head on collusion between two vehicles. She has denied the suggestion of learned counsel for respondent No.1 that, in case, her husband had taken precaution at the time of driving Indica car, he could have avoided the accident. She has admitted that, her husband is professional driver. She has denied the suggestion that, her husband being professional driver knows traffic rules and regulations and inspite of the same, he driven the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and due to his negligence, the accident has taken place. She has denied the suggestion SCCH-11 27 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640 6641, 6642/2013 that, eventhough, the accident taken place due to the negligence of her husband, they have not filed complaint against her husband and falsely implicated the driver of Tata Sumo Vehicle. In the cross-examination of PW.3, she has admitted that, in the night at 11.30 pm., it is sleeping hours, but on that day, she was not sleeping and she was sitting in the back seat of Indica car. She has denied the suggestion that, PW.1 was in sleeping mood and he dashed the car to the Tata Sumo vehicle and due to his negligence, accident taken place. In the cross-examination of PW.4 by the learned counsel for respondent No.1, nothing has been asked about rash and negligent driving. In the cross-examination of PW.4, she has admitted that, she does not know that, whether the accident has taken place in the middle of the road.
24) The learned counsel for petitioner has contended that, on 14.10.2013, at about 11.30 pm., petitioners and deceased Shankarapaa were proceeding in car bearing Regn.No.KA-01-AA-6036 from Tiptur to Bangalore on Magadi- Bangalore road. He has submitted that, when they reached at the place of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle SCCH-11 28 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640 6641, 6642/2013 driven the same in rash and negligent manner endangering to human life and dashed to the Tata Indica car and accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of offending vehicle and jurisdictional police have registered the case against him. He has submitted that, 7 witnesses have been examined and policy is not disputed and in the said accident, all petitioners have sustained injuries and deceased Shankarappa died on the same day of the accident.
25) The learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that, since, 6 passengers were traveling in one car from Tiptur to Bangalore, accident taken place due to loss of balance. He has submitted that, the petitioner Naveen Kumar was driving the same and road is having width of 40 - 50 feet and vehicle of the petitioners was taken turn to the petrol bunk to fill the petrol without any signal. He has submitted that, PW.1 has admitted in his cross-examination that, he has not surrendered his driving licence and there is no loss of future income. He has submitted that, there is contributory negligence on the part of the driver of car bearing SCCH-11 29 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640 6641, 6642/2013 Regn.No.KA-01-AA-6036 which may be taken into consideration. He has submitted that, 50 - 50 percentage of negligence may be taken into consideration and PW.1 has stated that, he has not surrendered his driving licence. It is also submitted that, court has to look into all documents including F.I.R for arriving just and proper conclusion. He has relied upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Sinitha and others) 2012 (1) T.A.C 234 (S.C.) in support of his contention. He has also relied upon one more decision reported in (Ram Sujan Tiwari vs. Sita Gupta and others) 2009 ACJ 437 regarding contributory negligence. He has also relied upon decision reported in (Harkhu Bai and Others Vs. Jiyaram and Others) 2005 ACJ 1332 wherein it is held that -
" Negligence - Truck 'A' collided head on against truck 'B' coming from the opposite direction, truck 'B' was extensively damaged and its driver sustained fatal injuries - None of the witnesses produced by claimants was an eyewitness who could explain the genesis of accident - Tribunal held that claimants failed to prove that, accident occurred on account of negligence of driver of truck 'A' - Appellate court observed that owner and driver of truck 'A' were exparte, insurance company was not entitled to raise the defence that accident had not taken place on account of negligence of driver of truck 'A'; and SCCH-11 30 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640 6641, 6642/2013 that driver of truck 'A' pleaded guilty in criminal trial and was convicted - Tribunal's finding reversed in appeal and held that driver of truck 'A' was rash and negligent and responsible for the accident".
26) On perusal of evidence of PW1 to 4, it reveals that, PW1 Naveeen is husband of PW2 and brother in law of the PW3 and there were five persons and one child by name Priya were traveling in TATA Indica car bearing No.KA-01-AA-6036 from Tiptur to Bangalore via Magadi. On perusal of oral evidence of PW1 to 4, it reveals that, the accident taken place when they reached near Kadabagere gate, Dasanapur Hobli. On perusal of cross examination of PW1 to 4 and suggestions made to the said witnesses, they reveal that, the petitioners and deceased were proceeding in TATA Indica car bearing No.KA-01-AA-6036 from Tiptur to Bangalore via Magadi and TATA Sumo vehicle bearing No.KA-22-M-4977 was coming from opposite direction which was proceeding from Bangalore towards Tiptur and there was head on collusion between two vehicles. On perusal of evidence of RW1, he has stated that, his owner's daughter was sitting on the back seat of TATA Sumo vehicle and she has also sustained injuries and after the accident, he was struck due to hitting of steering of car to SCCH-11 31 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640 6641, 6642/2013 his chest and he lost his mobile phone in the accident and he sustained bleeding injuries in the accident. This goes to show that, the accident has taken place due to collusion between car and TATA Sumo which cannot be ruled out. On perusal of cross examination of PW2, the PW1 who was driving TATA Indica car on the date of the accident and he is professional driver. This fact is not disputed. PW1 has stated in his evidence that, he had seen TATA Sumo vehicle at the distance of 20 feet. He has admitted that, in the darkness, the nature of vehicle coming from opposite direction can be identified on the basis of focus lamp. It is suggested to the PW1 that, since he had driven Indica Car for long distance and it was late hours, he has driven the said vehicle with high speed in order to reach his house in early hours and due to his negligence, the accident taken place. It is suggested to PW2 in her cross examination that, since her husband is professional driver and he knows traffic rules and regulations and in case, he had taken precaution, he could have avoided the accident. But this contention of the respondent No2 is not acceptable. Because, it cannot be held that, only for the reason that, PW1 is professional driver, he will not cause any accident or any SCCH-11 32 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640 6641, 6642/2013 professional drivers will not cause any accident or they can avoid the accident in any difficult or dangerous conditions. Even though, on several occasions, the drivers will drive their vehicles carefully and cautiously by observing traffic rules and regulations and by movement of vehicles on the road and they will give traffic signals whenever and wherever require and they will take all precautionary measures to drive the vehicles. But, if driver of opposite vehicle drives the same in rash and negligent manner without following traffic rules and regulations and any precaution taken by professional or expert driver cannot avoid such accidents. So, the happening of the accident depends upon the various factors like concentration of driver, speed of vehicle, road condition, condition of vehicle and obstacles on the road and so many other factors which will prominent role in the accident. So the said contention is not at all acceptable. Though RW1 has stated in his evidence that, the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of car bearing No.KA-01-AA-6036, he has not placed any materials on record to that effect. Even in the cross examination of RW1, he has admitted that, he has not filed complaint and he has SCCH-11 33 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640 6641, 6642/2013 not filed charge sheet filed by the police and after investigation, the police have filed charge sheet against him. Even in the cross examination of RW2, she has admitted that, insurance company and RW1 have not challenged the charge sheet filed by the police against the driver of TATA Sumo vehicle.
27) The petitioners have certified copy of FIR and complaint which are marked as ExP.1 and 2 and as per said documents, when PW1 to 4, petitioner Priya and deceased Sharanappa were proceeding in Indica Car bearing No.KA-01- AA-6036 from Tiptur to Bangalore via Magadi and came near Kadabagere gate, Dasanapur Hobli, the driver of TATA Sumo vehicle bearing No.KA-22-M-4097 came from opposite direction and dashed to the TATA Indica car and caused the accident and said car was being driven by PW1. On the basis of the complaint, Madanayakanahalli police have registered the case against the driver of TATA Sumo vehicle bearing No.KA-22-M-4097 in Cr.No.631/2013. Petitioners have also produced certified copy of hand sketch map and panchanama which are marked as ExP.3 and 4 and as per said documents, SCCH-11 34 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640 6641, 6642/2013 TATA Sumo vehicle bearing No.KA-22-M-4097 was proceeding from Bangalore to Tiptur and TATA Indica bearing No.KA-01- AA-6036 came from Tiptur to Bangalore and there is petrol bunk towards north at the distance of 30 feet from the place of the accident and accident taken place due to head on collusion between two vehicles. Petitioners have produced certified copy of motor vehicle inspection report which is marked as ExP.5 and on perusal of said document, both vehicles sustained damage to front portion and right side both doors and right side front wheel of TATA Indica car were damaged which goes to show that, the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of offending vehicle. Learned counsel for respondent insurance company has relied upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in National Insurance Company Ltd V/s Sinitha and other 2012 (1)TAC 234 and Ram Sujan Tiwari V/s Sita Gupta and others 2009 ACJ 437 and Harkhu Bai and others V/s Jiyaram and others 2005 ACJ 1332 in support of his arguments and submitted that, in the claim petitions under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, the claimants have to prove rash and negligent driving and burden to plead and SCCH-11 35 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640 6641, 6642/2013 establish that, rash and negligent driving is upon the claimants. But in this case, the petitioners have led their oral evidence and in support of their evidence, they have produced police documents like FIR, hand sketch map, Mahazar and motor vehicle inspection report which clearly reveal that, the accident taken place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of offending vehicle. Though RW1 has stated in his evidence that, the driver of TATA Indica car taken turn to fill the petrol, there is no evidence to that effect and he has not challenged charge sheet filed by the police and oral evidence of petitioners is supported by the documentary evidence. So I hold that, the petitioners have produced rash and negligent driving by driver of offending vehicle. So I answer issue No.1 in all cases in the affirmative.
28) ADDITIONAL ISSUE No1 in M.V.C.No.6637/2013, 6638/2013, 6639/2013,
6640/2013, 6641/2013 and M.V.C.No.6642/2013: The respondent No2 has taken contention that, petitioners have not impleaded owner and insurer of TATA Indica car bearing No. KA-01-AA-6036 as party to these claim petitions and SCCH-11 36 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640 6641, 6642/2013 petitions are bad for non joinder of necessary parties. But this contention of the respondent No.2 is not acceptable. Because, the jurisdictional police have registered the case against the driver of offending vehicle and after investigation, they have filed charge sheet against the driver of said vehicle and there are no materials on record to show that, as on the date of the accident, the driver of TATA Indica car bearing No.KA-01-AA- 6036 was responsible for the accident. In the absence of any materials to that effect, I hold that, owner and insurer of TATA Indica car bearing No.KA-01-AA-6036 are not necessary and proper parties for adjudication of claim petitions and in their absence, the claim petitions can be adjudicated effectively. Hence, the contention of the respondent No2 on that aspect is not acceptable. So I answer additional issue No1 in all above cases in the negative.
29) ADDITIONAL ISSUE No2 in M.V.C.No.6637/2013, 6638/2013, 6639/2013, 6640/2013, 6641/2013 and M.V.C.No.6642/2013: The
respondent No2 has taken contention that, as on the date of the accident, the driver of offending vehicle was not holding SCCH-11 37 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640 6641, 6642/2013 valid and effective driving licence and the respondent No1 entrusted the said vehicle to such person and violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy. But this contention of the learned counsel for respondent No2 is not acceptable. Because, the respondent No2 has examined driver of TATA Sumo vehicle bearing No.KA-22-M-4097 as RW1 who has stated that, on the date of the accident, he was holding driving licence bearing No.KA-02-19990015080 which has been issued by RTO Ramanagar on 8.2.1999 which was valid upto 7.2.2019 and he has produced true copy of his driving licence which is marked as ExR.1 and as per said document, driver of offending vehicle was holding valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident and said driving licence is not expired. When the driver of said vehicle was holding valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident, question of violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy by the respondent No1 does not arise at all. Hence, the contention taken by the respondent No2 is not acceptable. So I answer additional issue No2 in the negative. SCCH-11 38 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640
6641, 6642/2013
30) ISSUE No2 in M.V.C.No.6637/2013: PW1 has stated in his evidence that, in the said accident, he sustained fracture of right femur, fracture of left humerus, gross heamoperitoneum with grade IV spleenic laceration, multiple abrasions over face and right ear bleeding. He has stated that, immediately after the accident, he was admitted in Lakshmi Multi Specialty hospital, Sunkadakatte, Bangalore wherein x-rays were taken and fracture were confirmed and he undergone surgery and implants fixation for left humerus and right femur fractures and underwent spleenectomy+peritoneal closure and other injuries were conservatively with suturing and dressing and he was discharged on 30.10.2013 with an advice for regular follow up treatment and bed rest and he is still undergoing follow up treatment. In the cross examination of PW1, he has denied the suggestion that, he has not spent Rs.4,50,000/- for the purpose of treatment and he has not produced medical bills to the extent of Rs.4,50,000/- and he has created ExP.11 by colluding with the doctors.
SCCH-11 39 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640
6641, 6642/2013
31) In the cross examination of PW1 by the learned counsel for respondent No2, it is suggested and admitted that, serial No3 to 35 are pertaining to the treatment taken by him as inpatient in the hospital. Petitioner Naveen has produced medical bills and medical prescriptions which are marked as ExP.11 and 12 and as per said documents, the petitioner has spent Rs.3,75,751.81ps towards treatment in Sri.Lakshmi Multi-specialty hospital. So I hold that, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.3,75,752/- (rounded off Rs.3,75,751.81ps) under the head of medical expenses.
32) PW1 has produced discharge summary issued by Sri.Lakshmi Multi-specialty hospital which is marked as ExP.10 and as per said document, the petitioner Naveen was admitted in the said hospital on 15.10.2013 and discharged on 30.10.2013. During the period of hospitalisation, the petitioner would have spent some amount towards food, conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges and his family members who attended in the hospital would have spent some amount towards food and other incidental SCCH-11 40 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640 6641, 6642/2013 charges. Considering the period of hospitalisation and cost of living, I feel it just and proper to award the compensation of Rs.18,000/- under the head of food, conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges. Hence, the petitioner is awarded the compensation of Rs.18,000/- under the head of food, conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges.
33) Petitioner Naveen was admitted in Sri.Lakshmi Multi-specialty hospital from 15.10.2013 to 30.10.2013 and during the period of hospitalisation, the petitioner would have lost some income and his family members who attended him would have also some income. Considering the period of hospitalisation, nature of treatment, avocation and income of the petitioner, I feel it just and proper to award the compensation of Rs.15,000/- under the head of loss of income during laid up period. Hence, the petitioner is awarded the compensation of Rs.15,000/- under the head of loss of income during laid up period.
34) As per wound certificate, petitioner sustained grievous injuries and as per discharge summary, petitioner SCCH-11 41 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640 6641, 6642/2013 sustained right femur and humerus fracture, gross heamoperioneum+grate IV splenic laceration and he has undergone of ORIF and CRIF to the left humerus and right femur. As per evidence of PW6, petitioner sustained whole body disability at 25% and petitioner Naveen has pain and restriction of movements. Due to the accidental injuries, the petitioner has to undergo deep pain and agony and he has to suffer physically and mentally throughout his life. Considering this fact, I feel it just and proper to award the compensation of Rs.30,000/- under the head of pain and agony. Hence, petitioner is awarded the compensation of Rs.30,000/- under the head of pain and agony.
35) Petitioner Naveen has suffered whole body disability at 25% and he has undergone surgery of ORIF and CRIF to the left humerus and right femur. The petitioner is unable to enjoy some amenities in life and he cannot lead his life as earlier and as per evidence of PW6, there is restriction of movements and pain. Considering all these aspects, I feel it just and proper to award the compensation of Rs.30,000/- under the head of loss of amenities in life. Hence, the SCCH-11 42 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640 6641, 6642/2013 petitioner is awarded the compensation of Rs.30,000/- under the head of loss of amenities in life.
36) PW1 has stated in his evidence that, prior to the accident, he was working as driver at Janani Tours and Resorts Pvt.Ltd and earning Rs.12,000/- per month and due to the accidental injuries and permanent disability, he is unable to attend his work and he has lost his income. In the cross examination of PW1, he has stated that, he has not surrendered his driving licence to RTO authorities due to inability to drive motor vehicle. He has stated that, he has produced salary certificate and work certificate from Janani Tours and Resorts Pvt.Ltd and there are more than 1000 employees working in the said Company and he is working in the said company since three years and there is no provident fund and ESI facility in Janani Tours and Travels. He has stated that, Janani Tours and Travels has not maintained attendance register of the employees and he has not produced his identity card issued by Janani Tours and Travels. He has stated that, he will examine author of ExP.9 before this court. SCCH-11 43 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640
6641, 6642/2013 He has admitted that, he has got renewed his driving licence after the accident.
37) PW6 has stated in his evidence that, he examined the petitioner Naveen on 17.6.2015 and found difficulties as shown in para No.4 of chief affidavit and petitioner has suffered permanent physical impairment at 14% and mobility component at 6% and disability of 13% to left upper limb and 25% to the whole body and 14% to the right lower limb. He has admitted in his cross-examination that, the fracture will heal to persons aged between 18 - 30 years and they will advise physiotherapy treatment to reduce the restriction of movements. PW.1 has stated in his cross-examination that, he was working as Driver in the Janani tours and resorts Pvt. Ltd. He has admitted that, he got renewed his driving licence after the accident. He has stated that, in Ex.P.9 it is not mentioned that, he has left the work of driver. But it is not elicited in the cross-examination that, still he is attending the work. Due to accidental injury, petitioner is unable to carryout driving work and he has suffered whole body disability at 25%. The petitioner is born on 10.2.1988 as per SCCH-11 44 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640 6641, 6642/2013 Ex.P.8 and as on the date of accident, he was about 25 years. Then multiplier applicable to the facts of the case is 18 as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 (Sarla Verma's case). Though petitioner has produced Ex.P.9, and stated in his evidence that, he will examine author of Ex.P.9 to prove his salary, he has not adduced the evidence of his employer. Hence, the said document cannot be relied upon. On perusal of the driving licence, it is clear that, the petitioner is professional driver. Due to the accidental injuries, he is unable to carryout his work. If the notional income of the petitioner is taken at Rs.5,000/-, there shall be addition of 50% as petitioner is aged below the 50 years as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbeer Singh and others) 2013 ACJ 1403. If 50% is added to the income of the petitioner, his gross income will be at Rs.7,500/-. If 1/3rd is deducted towards personal expenses of the petitioner, it will be at Rs.5,000/-. Then loss of income will be -
Rs.5,000/- X 12 X 18 X 25/100 = Rs.2,70,000/- SCCH-11 45 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640
6641, 6642/2013 So, I hold that, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,70,000/- under the head of loss of income.
38) PW1 has stated that, petitioner has to undergo one more surgery for removal of implants which will cost Rs.55,000/-. In the cross examination of PW6, he has admitted that, he has not issued estimation for removal of costs and treatment will be provided at concession costs at Sanjay Gandhi hospital. On perusal of recent X-rays, the implants are in situ and petitioner needs one more surgery for removal of implants which may cost differently in various hospitals depending upon the standard of hospital. However, considering the costs of removal of implants, I feel it just and proper to award the compensation of Rs.25,000/- under the head of future medical expenses which shall not carry any interest. Hence, the petitioner is awarded the compensation of Rs.25,000/- under the head of future medical expenses.
39) The Calculation table stands as follows:
1) Medical expenses Rs. 3,75,752/-
SCCH-11 46 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640
6641, 6642/2013
2) Food, nourishment &Rs. 18,000/-
conveyance
3) Loss of income during laid upRs. 15,000/-
period
4) Pain and agony Rs. 30,000/-
5) Loss of amenities in life Rs. 30,000/-
6) Loss of income Rs. 2,70,000/-
7) Future medical expenses Rs. 25,000/-
Total Rs. Rs. 7,63,752/-
So, I hold that, petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.7,63,752/-along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realisation. So, I answered issue No.2 in MVC No.6637/2013 in partly affirmative.
40) ISSUE No2 in M.V.C.No.6638/2013: PW2 has stated in her evidence that, she has sustained fracture of left ulna, deep cut lacerated wound over mid fore head measuring 6x2cm, cut lacerated wound over left eyebrow measuring 5x2cm, multiple abrasions over left hand. She has stated that, she was admitted in Lakshmi Multi Specialty hospital, SCCH-11 47 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640 6641, 6642/2013 Sunkadakatte, Bangalore wherein x-rays were taken and fracture were confirmed and she undergone surgery and internal fixation and other injuries were treated with suturing and dressing and discharged on 18.10.2013 with an advice for regular follow up treatment and bed rest and she is still undergoing follow up treatment. In the cross examination of PW2, she has admitted that, Dr.Gangadhar of Sri.Lakshmi Multi-specialty hospital has given treatment to her and one Orthopaedician has also given treatment to her, but she does not know the name of said doctor. She has stated that, she was admitted in the said hospital for 4 days and she has produced receipts for having paid Rs.56,430/- in the Sri.Lakshmi Multi-specialty hospital. She has denied the suggestion that, the medical bills will not tally with medical prescriptions.
41) Petitioner Shobha has produced medical bills which are marked as ExP.16 and medical prescriptions which are marked as ExP.17 and as per medical bills, the petitioner has spent Rs.69,753.87ps towards treatment in Sri.Lakshmi Multi-specialty hospital. So I hold that, petitioner is entitled SCCH-11 48 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640 6641, 6642/2013 for compensation of Rs.69,754/-(rounded off Rs. 69,753.87ps). Hence, the petitioner is awarded the compensation of Rs.69,754/- under the head of medical expenses.
42) PW2 has produced certified copy of wound certificate which is marked as ExP.13 and as per said document, she has sustained injuries shown in wound certificate and injury No1 to 3 are grievous in nature and injury No4 is simple in nature. She has also produced discharge summary issued by Sri.Lakshmi Multi-specialty hospital and as per said document, she was admitted in the said hospital on 15.10.2013 and discharged on 18.10.2013 and she was admitted as inpatient for 4 days. During the period of hospitalisation, the petitioner would have spent some amount for food, conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges and her family members who attended her during the period of hospitalisation would have also spent some amount for food and incidental charges. Considering the period of hospitalisation and cost of living, I feel it just and proper to award the compensation of Rs.6,000/- under SCCH-11 49 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640 6641, 6642/2013 the head of food, conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges. Hence, the petitioner is awarded the compensation of Rs.6,000/- under the head of food, conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges.
43) Petitioner Shobha was admitted in Sri.Lakshmi Multi-specialty hospital from 15.10.2013 to 18.10.2013 and during the period of hospitalisation, the petitioner would have lost some income and her family members who attended her would have lost some income. Considering the period of hospitalisation, avocation and income of the petitioner, I feel it just and proper to award the compensation of Rs.6,000/- under the head of loss of income during laid up period. Hence, the petitioner is awarded the compensation of Rs.6,000/- under the head of loss of income during laid up period.
44) As per discharge summary issued by Sri.Lakshmi Multi-specialty hospital which is marked as ExP.14, the petitioner sustained ulna fracture left and she undergone surgery of ORIF under GA on 16.10.2013 and discharged with SCCH-11 50 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640 6641, 6642/2013 an advice for removal of suturing and medicines. As per evidence of PW2, she was working as trailer in Prajawal Fashion and due to the accidental injuries and permanent disability, she is unable to attend her work and she has lost her income. As per evidence of PW6, the petitioner has suffered whole body disability at 12% and petitioner has pain and restriction of movements around left wrist joint and pain in the left forearm causing mild difficulty in performing routine activities. As per evidence of PW6, since petitioner was pregnant, x-rays were not taken and x-rays is necessary to know union or non union of fracture. Since petitioner has sustained fracture of ulna bone, she has to undergo deep pain and agony and she has to undergo physical and mental strain and she has to suffer throughout her life. Considering this fact, I feel it just and proper to award the compensation of Rs.15,000/- under the head of pain and agony. Hence, the petitioner is awarded the compensation of Rs.15,000/- under the head of pain and agony.
45) Petitioner has sustained fracture of ulna and she is unable to enjoy some amenities in life and she has to SCCH-11 51 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640 6641, 6642/2013 depend upon others for daily activities and she cannot enjoy her life as earlier. Considering this fact, I feel it just and proper to award the compensation of Rs.15,000/- under the head of loss of amenities in life. Hence, the petitioner is awarded the compensation of Rs.15,000/- under the head of loss of amenities in life.
46) PW2 has stated in her evidence that, prior to the accident, she was working as tailor in Prajawal Fashion and earning Rs.6000 per month and due to the accidental injuries and permanent disability, she is unable to attend her work and she has lost her income. In the cross examination of PW2, she has stated that, she has produced documents before this court to show that, she was working as tailor. She has stated that, there are 70 employees in Prajawal Fashions and she is working there since three years and she is not attending the work due to accidental injuries. She has stated that, owner of Prajawal Fashion has not terminated her service. She has stated that, there is provident fund and ESI facility in the Prajawal Fashion and she has no impediment to examine owner or higher officer of Prajawal Fashions. She has SCCH-11 52 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640 6641, 6642/2013 produced certificate issued by Prajawal Fashion which is marked as ExP.15 and as per said document, petitioner was working as tailor and earning Rs.6,500/- per month and due to accidental injuries, she is not attending work since the date of accident till today. Though Prajwal fashions has not terminated her service, it has issued endorsement stating that, petitioner is not attending the work since from 14.10.2013, which goes to show that, petitioner has lost her income and she is not attending the work. But she has not examined the author of the said document to show that, she was earning Rs.6,500/- per month. The petitioner has suffered whole body disability at 12% as per the evidence of PW.6 and she has suffered loss of stability component of left upper limb at 4% and loss of mobility component of left upper limb at 6% with extra point of 2%. Petitioner has not produced documents about her age and in the medical records, her age is shown as 25 years. Then multiplier applicable to the facts of the case is 18 as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 (Sarla Verma's case). Since, the petitioner has not adduced the evidence of her employer and has not proved her income, her SCCH-11 53 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640 6641, 6642/2013 notional income is considered at Rs.5,000/-. Since the petitioner is below age of 50 years, there shall be addition of 50% to the income of the petitioner which will come at Rs.7,500/-.As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 (Sarla Verma's case), if 1/3rd is deducted towards personal expenses of the petitioner, it will be at Rs.5,000/-. Then loss of income will be -
Rs.5,000/- X 12 X 18 X 12/100 = Rs.1,29,600/- So, I hold that, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,29,600/- under the head of loss of income.
47) PW6 has stated that, the petitioner has to undergo one more surgery for removal of implants which will costs Rs.30,000/-. Since petitioner was advised for removal of suturing after one week from the date of discharge which would have been removed and already more than two years lapsed from the date of discharge and there are no x-rays to show that, implants are in situ and she has to undergo one more surgery, I hold that, petitioner is not entitled for any compensation under the head of future medical expenses. SCCH-11 54 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640
6641, 6642/2013
48) The Calculation table stands as follows:
1) Medical expenses Rs. 69,754/-
2) Food, nourishment &Rs. 6,000/-
conveyance
3) Loss of income during laid upRs. 6,000/-
period
4) Pain and agony Rs. 15,000/-
5) Loss of amenities in life Rs. 15,000/-
6) Loss of income Rs.1,29,600
Total Rs. Rs. 2,41,354 /-
So, I hold that, petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,41,354/-along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realisation. So, I answered issue No.2 in MVC No.6638/2013 in partly affirmative.
49) ISSUE No2 in M.V.C.No.6639/2013: PW3 has stated in her evidence that, she has sustained blunt injury over left shoulder region, blunt injury over left lower back region. She has also stated that, she was admitted in Lakshmi Multi Specialty hospital, Sunkadakatte, Bangalore SCCH-11 55 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640 6641, 6642/2013 wherein she was treated with dressing and discharged on 17.10.2013 with an advice for regular follow up treatment and bed rest and she is still undergoing follow up treatment. In the cross examination of PW3, she has denied that, she has sustained only simple injuries and she has not spent Rs.15,000/- for treatment and Rs.10,000/- for nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges. She has also denied that, she was not working as tailor and was not earning Rs.60000/- per year and she is attending her work. She has admitted that, she has not produced any other documents except ExP.19 to show that, she has sustained loss of income for two months. She has clearly admitted in her cross examination that, presently she is getting salary of Rs.8,000 per month. On perusal of evidence of PW3, she is still attending the work and she has not sustained any economic loss due to the accidental injuries. As per wound certificate which is marked as ExP.18, the petitioner sustained contusion over left shoulder on lateral aspect measuring 2 x 2 cms and contusion over left lower back measuring 2x1cms and said injuries are simple in nature and as per ExP.20, she was admitted in Sri. Lakshmi Multi-specialty SCCH-11 56 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640 6641, 6642/2013 hospital on 15.10.2013 and discharged on 17.10.2013 and she has not undergone any surgery in the hospital. She has produced medical bills which are marked as ExP.22 and as per said documents, she has spent Rs.9,816.53ps and she has also produced medical prescriptions in support of medical bills. The petitioner has sustained simple injuries and she was admitted in the hospital for three days and she has not undergone any surgery. Considering medical bills and treatment undergone by petitioner and nature of injuries sustained by her, I feel it just and proper to award global compensation of Rs.20,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realization. So I answer issue No2 in M.V.C.No.6639/2013 in partly affirmative.
50) ISSUE No2 in M.V.C.No.6640/2013: PW3 has stated in her evidence that, her daughter Priya sustained fracture of both bones of left hand, abrasion over forehead and blunt injury over right side cheek. She has also stated that, her daughter was admitted in Lakshmi Multi Specialty hospital, Sunkadakatte, Bangalore wherein x-rays were taken SCCH-11 57 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640 6641, 6642/2013 and fracture were confirmed and she was treated conservatively with POP cast application and other injuries were treated with dressing and discharged on 16.10.2013 with an advice for regular follow up treatment and bed rest and she is still undergoing follow up treatment. In the cross examination of PW3, she has admitted that, she has not produced any documents about sports and cultural activities of her daughter. She has stated that, she has produced documents about absence of her daughter to the school for 4 months. She has admitted that, her daughter is attending her classes now. She has also admitted that, she has not produced wound certificate of her daughter before this court. PW3 has produced discharge summary of her daughter and as per said document, petitioner sustained blunt trauma to the left forearm with tenderness and minimal deformity. The petitioner has undergone surgery of closed reduction under GA on 15.10.2013. As per ExP.25, the petitioner has not attended the school from 14.10.2013 till November 2013. Petitioner has produced medical bills which is marked as ExP.26 and as per said document, the petitioner has spent Rs.31,317.12ps for the purpose of treatment and she has SCCH-11 58 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640 6641, 6642/2013 produced medical prescriptions about medical expenses. Considering this fact, I feel it just and proper to award the compensation of Rs.31,317/- (rounded off Rs.31,317.12ps) towards medical expenses for the parents. Hence, the petitioner is awarded the compensation of Rs.31,317/- under the head of medical expenses.
51) PW3 has stated in her evidence that, her daughter was studying in 4th std at Maruthi School, Kamakshipalya Bangalore and due to the accidental injuries, her daughter had not attended the school for four months which affected her educational career. But as per school certificate, the petitioner had not attended the classes from 14.10.2013 to November 2013. PW 6 has stated in his evidence that, petitioner has pain and restriction of movements around left wrist joint and pain in the left forearm causing mild difficulty in performing routine activities. He has stated that, petitioner has suffered whole body disability at 8%. In the cross examination of PW6, he has admitted that, the fractures are united and fractures will not affect day to day activities of the petitioner and injuries are heeled up. However, the fracture SCCH-11 59 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640 6641, 6642/2013 site will cause pain and restriction of movements. As per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (Master Mallikarjan Vs. Divisional Manager, The National Insurance Company Limited and Another), I.L.R 2013 KAR 4891, in case of disability below 10% to children, the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- shall be awarded. In view of principles laid down in the decision referred supra, I hold that, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of pain and suffering already undergone and to be suffered in future, mental and physical shock, hardship, inconvenience and discomforts etc., and loss of amenities in life on account of permanent disability. Hence, the petitioner is awarded Rs.1,00,000/- under the above said head.
52) Due to the accidental injuries, parents of the petitioner have lost their earnings and they have taken care of her and they have to suffer inconvenience and discomfort. So, I hold that petitioner is entitled compensation of Rs.20,000/- under the head of discomfort, inconvenience and loss of earnings to the parents during the period of SCCH-11 60 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640 6641, 6642/2013 hospitalisation. Hence, Petitioner is awarded Rs.20,000/- under the said head.
53) The Calculation table stands as follows:
1) Medical expenses Rs. 31,317/-
2) Pain and suffering Rs. 1,00,000/-
already undergone
and to be suffered
in future, mental
and physical
shock, hardship,
inconvenience and
discomforts etc.,
and loss of
amenities in life
on account of
permanent
disability
3) Discomfort, Rs.20,000/-
inconvenience and
loss of earnings to
the parents during
the period of
hospitalisation
Total Rs.1,51,317/-
So, I hold that, petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,51,317/-along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum SCCH-11 61 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640 6641, 6642/2013 from the date of claim petition till its realisation. So, I answered issue No.2 in MVC No.6640/2013 in partly affirmative.
54) ISSUE No2 in M.V.C.No.6641/2013: PW4 has stated in his evidence that, he sustained L-1 compression fracture with paraplegia. He was admitted in Lakshmi Multi Specialty hospital, Sunkadakatte, Bangalore wherein x-rays were taken and fracture were confirmed and he was treated conservatively with physiotherapy and discharged on 29.10.2013 with an advice for regular follow up treatment, physiotherapy and bed rest and he is still undergoing follow up treatment. In the cross-examination of PW.4, he has denied the suggestion that, he has not spent Rs.1,20,000/- and Rs.40,000/- towards food, conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges. He has stated that, he has not produced advance bills in respect of Ex.P.31.
55) The petitioner Sharanappa has produced medical bills which are marked at Ex.P.31 and medical prescriptions which are marked at Ex.P.32and as per the said documents, SCCH-11 62 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640 6641, 6642/2013 the petitioner has spent Rs.93,745/- for the purpose of treatment in Sri Lakshmi Multi speciality hospital. Considering the medical bills spent for treatment in the hospital, I hold that, petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.93,745/- under the head of medical expenses.
56) Petitioner has produced discharge summary issued by Sri Lakshmi Multi speciality hospital and as per the said document, he was admitted in the said hospital on 15.10.2013 and discharged on 29.10.2013 and he was totally admitted in the said hospital for 14 days. During the period of hospitalisation, the petitioner would have spent some amount towards food, conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges and his family members who attended in the hospital would have spent some amount towards food and other incidental charges. Considering the period of hospitalisation and cost of living, I feel it just and proper to award the compensation of Rs.16,000/- under the head of food, conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges. Hence, the petitioner is awarded the compensation of SCCH-11 63 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640 6641, 6642/2013 Rs.16,000/- under the head of food, conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges.
57) Petitioner Sharanappa was admitted in Sri.Lakshmi Multi-specialty hospital from 15.10.2013 to 29.10.2013 and during the period of hospitalisation, the petitioner would have lost some income and his family members who attended him would have also some income. Considering the period of hospitalisation, nature of treatment, avocation and income of the petitioner, I feel it just and proper to award the compensation of Rs.15,000/- under the head of loss of income during laid up period. Hence, the petitioner is awarded the compensation of Rs.15,000/- under the head of loss of income during laid up period.
58) As per wound certificate, petitioner sustained contusion over the lower back in thoraco lumber region in the mid line measuring 2 X 2 cm and abrassion over the fore head on left side measuring 1 X 1 cm and as per the CT scan report, he sustained undisplaced compression fracture involving T 12 and L1 vertebrae. The petitioner has SCCH-11 64 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640 6641, 6642/2013 undergone physiotherapy and he was treated symptomatically with supportive care. Due to the accidental injuries, the petitioner has to undergo deep pain and agony and he has to suffer physically and mentally throughout his life. Considering this fact, I feel it just and proper to award the compensation of Rs.20,000/- under the head of pain and agony. Hence, petitioner is awarded the compensation of Rs.20,000/- under the head of pain and agony.
59) Petitioner Sharanappa has suffered whole body disability at 15% and he was treated conservatively, KT brace and physiotherapy and discharged with advice for follow up treatment. The petitioner is unable to enjoy some amenities in life and he cannot lead his life as earlier and as per evidence of PW6, the petitioner has pain, stiffness and mild radiological changes in lower back causing moderate difficulties in doing his routine activities. Considering all these aspects, I feel it just and proper to award the compensation of Rs.30,000/- under the head of loss of amenities in life. Hence, the petitioner is awarded the SCCH-11 65 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640 6641, 6642/2013 compensation of Rs.30,000/- under the head of loss of amenities in life.
60) PW4 has stated in his evidence that, prior to the accident, he was working as CNC operator at Karnataka CNC Tech. Pvt. Limited Kamakshipalya, Bangalore and earning Rs.9,000/- per month and due to the accidental injuries and permanent disability, he is unable to attend his work and he has lost his income. In the cross examination of PW 4, he has stated that, he is not attending his work now and he has not left his work but, due to the accidental injuries, he is not attending his work. He has admitted that, he has not produced any documents to show that, he has submitted any letter or application to his employer stating that, he is unable to attend any work and representation given by his employer. He has also admitted that, he has not produced any documents about his income. Though PW.4 has stated in his evidence that, he was working as CNC operator at Karnataka CNC Tech. Pvt. Limited Kamakshipalya, Bangalore and earning Rs.9,000/- per month, he has not produced any documents about in his avocation and income. In the SCCH-11 66 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640 6641, 6642/2013 absence of any documents to that effect, his plea regarding his income and avocation is not acceptable. Since, there are no documents about income and avocation of the petitioner, his notional income is considered at Rs.5,000/-. The petitioner has stated in his evidence that, he is born on 25.7.1991 and as on the date of accident, he was aged about 22 years. In the medical record, the age of the petitioner is shown as 23 years. If the age of petitioner is taken in between 21 - 25, then multiplier applicable to the facts of the case is 18 as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 (Sarla Verma's case). If the notional income of the petitioner is taken at Rs.5,000/-, there shall be addition of 50% as petitioner is aged below the 50 years as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbeer Singh and other) 2013 ACJ 1403. If 50% is added to the income of the petitioner, his gross income will come at Rs.7,500/-. If 1/3rd is deducted towards personal expenses of the petitioner, it will be at Rs.5,000/-. Then loss of income will be -
Rs.5,000/- X 12 X 18 X 15/100 = Rs.1,62,000/- SCCH-11 67 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640
6641, 6642/2013 So, I hold that, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,62,000/- under the head of loss of income.
61) PW 6 has not suggested to the future surgery to the petitioner and he has not issued any estimation. So, I hold that, petitioner is not entitled for any compensation under the head of future medical expenses.
62) The Calculation table stands as follows:
1) Medical expenses Rs. 93,745/-
2) Food, nourishment &Rs. 16,000/-
conveyance
3) Loss of income during laid Rs. 15,000/-
up period
4) Pain and agony Rs. 20,000/-
5) Loss of amenities in life Rs. 30,000/-
6) Loss of income Rs. 1,62,000/-
Total Rs. Rs. 3,36,745/-
So, I hold that, petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.3,36,745/-along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realisation. So, I SCCH-11 68 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640 6641, 6642/2013 answered issue No.2 in MVC No.6641/2013 in partly affirmative.
63) ISSUE No.2 in MVC No.6642/2013:- PW.5 has stated in her evidence that, due to death of her deceased husband, she has sustained loss and they were solely depending upon the income of the deceased. She has also stated that, they brought dead body and conducted funeral and she has spent Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.30,000/- towards funeral and transportation of dead body.
64) The Police have conducted inquest Panchanama and true copy of inquest panchanama which is marked as Ex.P.34. The petitioners have produced post mortem report which is marked as Ex.P.33. The petitioners would have spent some amount towards transportation of dead body and for funeral expenses. So, I feel that it is just and proper to award compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards Transportation of dead body and Funeral expenses by following the principles laid down in the decision reported in (Rajesh and others vs. SCCH-11 69 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640 6641, 6642/2013 Rajbeer Singh and others) 2013 ACJ 1403. Hence, the petitioners are entitled for a sum of Rs.25,000/- under the head of Transportation of dead body and Funeral expenses
65) Due to the death of Shankarappa, the petitioner No.1 has lost her loving husband and petitioner No.2 has lost his loving father at his young age. Due to the accidental death of deceased Shankarappa, the petitioners have suffered economically and mentally. As per the decision reported in (Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir singh and others) 2013 ACJ 1403. In case of death, minimum Rs.1,00,000/- amount should be awarded under the death of loss of consortium. So, I hold that, petitioner No.1 is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of loss of consortium. Hence, the petitioner No.1 is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of loss of consortium.
66) Due to the accidental death of deceased in the RTA, the petitioner No.1 has lost love and affection of her husband and petitioner No.2 has lost his loving father at his SCCH-11 70 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640 6641, 6642/2013 young age. So, I hold that petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of love and affection. Hence, petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.20,000/- under the head of loss of love and affection.
67) PW.5 has stated in her evidence that, her deceased husband was aged about 55 years and he was hale and healthy and working as Blacksmith under one Sri.,Venkataramanachary, Furnace Proprietor Plants situated at opposite to Fair price shop, 5th cross, 2nd main, Kamakshipalya, Bangalore and earning Rs.12,000/- per month and contributing entire amount for the maintenance of the family and due to the death of deceased, she has lost income. In the cross-examination of PW.5, she has admitted that, she has not produced any documents to show that, her deceased husband was earning Rs.12,000/- per month. She has admitted in her cross-examination that, in the inquest panchanama, it is mentioned that, her deceased husband was doing coolie work and it is not mentioned that, he was working under Sri.,Venkataramanachary. She has denied the SCCH-11 71 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640 6641, 6642/2013 suggestions that, her deceased husband was belonged to Lingayath Community and they will not carryout work of Blacksmith. The petitioners have not produced any documents about age and income of the deceased. In the inquest Panchanama and post mortem, the age of the deceased is shown as 55 years. As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbeer Singh and others) 2013 ACJ 1403, there shall be addition of 15% to the persons aged above 50 years. If notional income of the deceased is considered at Rs.5,000/-, there shall be addition of 15% which will be at Rs.5,750/-. As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2009 SC3104 Sarla Verma case, the multiplier applicable to the facts of the case is 11. If 1/3rd is deducted towards personal expenses of deceased, the net income will be Rs.3,833/-. Then the loss of dependency of the petitioners is (Rs.3,833/- X 12 X 11 ) Rs.5,05,956/-. Hence, petitioners are entitled for the said sum of Rs.5,05,956/- under the head of loss of dependency.
SCCH-11 72 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640
6641, 6642/2013
68) Due to the death of deceased at his young age, the petitioners have lost some income. So, I feel it just and proper to award compensation of Rs.50,000/- under the head of loss of estate.
69) The calculation table stands as follows:-
1) Loss of dependency Rs. 5,05,956/-
2) Funeral expenses Rs. 25,000/-
3) Loss of consortium Rs. 1,00,000/-
4) Loss of love and affection Rs. 20,000/-
5) Loss of estate Rs. 50,000/-
Total Rs. 7,00,956/-
Therefore, in total the petitioners are entitled to compensation of Rs.7,00,956/- with simple interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till complete realisation.
70) Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle and as on the date of accident, insurance policy was in force. Hence, the respondent No.2 is liable to indemnify the liability of the respondent No.1. Hence, respondent No.2 is liable to pay SCCH-11 73 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640 6641, 6642/2013 compensation of Rs.7,63,752/- in MVC No.6637/2013, compensation of Rs.2,41,354/- in MVC No.6638/2013, global compensation of Rs.20,000/- in MVC No.6639/2013, compensation of Rs.1,51,317/- in MVC No.6640/2013, compensation of Rs.3,36,745/- in MVC No.6641/2013 and compensation of Rs.7,00,956/- in MVC No.6642/2013 along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till complete realisation. Accordingly, I answer this issue No.2 in partly affirmative.
71) ISSUE No.3: In view of answers to issues No.1 & 2 and in Addl. Issues No.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed under Section 166 of M.V. Act is partly allowed with costs.
The petitioner in MVC No.6637/2013 is entitled for compensation of Rs.7,63,752/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till complete realisation from respondent No.2.SCCH-11 74 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640
6641, 6642/2013 The petitioner in MVC No.6638/2013 is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,41,354/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till complete realisation from respondent No.2.
The petitioner in MVC No.6639/2013 is entitled for global compensation of Rs.20,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till complete realisation from respondent No.2.
The petitioner in MVC No.6640/2013 is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,51,317/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till complete realisation from respondent No.2.
The petitioner in MVC No.6641/2013 is entitled for compensation of Rs.3,36,745/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till complete realisation from respondent No.2.
The petitioner in MVC No.6642/2013 is entitled to compensation of Rs.7,00,956/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till complete realisation from respondent No.2.
The respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners and hereby directed to deposit the entire amount with accrued interest, within one month, from the date of this award.SCCH-11 75 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640
6641, 6642/2013 In case of deposit of the awarded compensation by the respondent No.2, in MVC No.6637/2013, the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- shall be deposited in F.D in the name of petitioner in any nationalized or scheduled bank for the period of 5 years, failing to furnish the particulars, the same shall be deposited in Karnataka Bank, City Civil Court Branch, Bangalore Remaining amount of Rs.4,63,752/- along with accrued interest on the awarded amount shall be released to the petitioner through account payee crossed cheque, on proper identification and verification.
In case of deposit of the awarded compensation by the respondent No.2, in MVC No.6638/2013, the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- shall be deposited in F.D in the name of petitioner in any nationalized or scheduled bank for the period of 5 years, failing to furnish the particulars, the same shall be deposited in Karnataka Bank, City Civil Court Branch, Bangalore Remaining amount of Rs.1,41,354/- along with accrued interest on the awarded amount shall be released to the petitioner through account payee crossed cheque, on proper identification and verification.
On deposit of compensation amount in MVC No.6639/2013 since it is meager amount, entire amount shall be released to the petitioner along with accrued interest by SCCH-11 76 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640 6641, 6642/2013 means of account payee crossed cheque, on proper identification and verification.
In case of deposit of the awarded compensation by the respondent No.2, in MVC No.6640/2013, the entire amount shall be deposited in F.D in the name of minor petitioner in any nationalized or scheduled bank for the period of 5 years or till she attains age of majority with liberty to the minor guardian to withdraw the accrued interest periodically on the deposited amount,, failing to furnish the particulars, the same shall be deposited in Karnataka Bank, City Civil Court Branch, Bangalore.
In case of deposit of the awarded compensation by the respondent No.2, in MVC No.6641/2013, the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- shall be deposited in F.D in the name of petitioner in any nationalized or scheduled bank for the period of 5 years, failing to furnish the particulars, the same shall be deposited in Karnataka Bank, City Civil Court Branch, Bangalore Remaining amount of Rs.2,36,745/- along with accrued interest on the awarded amount shall be released to the petitioner through account payee crossed cheque, on proper identification and verification.
In case of deposit of the awarded compensation by the respondent No.2, in MVC No.6642/2013, Rs.4,00,000/- is apportioned to the share of petitioner No.1 including consortium SCCH-11 77 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640 6641, 6642/2013 of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,956/- is apportioned to the share of petitioner No.2, In apportioned amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to the petitioner No.1, Rs.2,00,000/- shall be deposited in F.D in the name of petitioner No.1 in any nationalized or scheduled bank for the period of 5 years, failing to furnish the particulars, the same shall be deposited in Karnataka Bank, City Civil Court Branch, Bangalore.
Remaining amount of Rs.2,00,000/- along with accrued interest on the awarded amount shall be released to the petitioner No.1 through account payee crossed cheque, on proper identification and verification.
In apportioned amount of Rs.3,00,956/- to the petitioner No.2, Rs.2,00,000/- shall be deposited in F.D in the name of petitioner No.2 in any nationalized or scheduled bank for the period of 5 years, failing to furnish the particulars, the same shall be deposited in Karnataka Bank, City Civil Court Branch, Bangalore.
Remaining amount of Rs1,00,956/- shall be released to the petitioner No.2 through account payee crossed cheque, on proper identification and verification.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- on each case.SCCH-11 78 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640
6641, 6642/2013 Draw award accordingly.
(Original copy of judgment is kept in MVC 6637/2013 and copy of the same shall be kept in MVC No.6638/2013, MVC No.6639/2013, MVC No.6640/2013, MVC No.6641/2013 and in MVC No.6642/2013) (Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this 16th day of September, 2015.) (GANAPATHI GURUSIDDA BADAMI) I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXVII ACMM ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PETITIONERS:
PW.1 - Naveen @ B.S.Naveen Kumar PW.2 - Shobha PW.3 - Shyla PW.4 - Sharanappa S.S. PW.5 - Basamma PW.6 - Dr. Avinash Parthasarathy PW.7 - Narasimha Swamy DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS: Ex.P.1 - Certified copy of FIR Ex.P.2 - Certified copy of complaint Ex.P.3 - Certified copy of hand sketch map Ex.P.4 - Certified copy of spot panchanama SCCH-11 79 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640 6641, 6642/2013 Ex.P.5 - Certified copy of IMV report Ex.P.6 - Certified copy of wound certificate Ex.P.7 - Certified copy of charge sheet Ex.P.8 - Notarised copy of driving licence Ex.P.9 - Salary certificate Ex.P.10 - Discharge summary Ex.P.11 - 35 medical bills Ex.P.12 - 29 medical prescriptions Ex.P.13 - Truce copy of wound certificate Ex.P.14 - Discharge summary Ex.P.15 - Salary certificate Ex.P.16 - 15 Medical bills Ex.P.17 - 16 medical prescriptions Ex.P.18 - Certified copy of wound certificate Ex.P.19 - Salary certificate Ex.P.20 - Discharge summary Ex.P.21 - 1 Medical prescription Ex.P.22 - 4 medical bills Ex.P.23 - 3 medical prescriptions Ex.P.24 - Discharge summary Ex.P.25 - One certificate issued by Head Mistress Ex.P.26 - 8 medical bills SCCH-11 80 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640 6641, 6642/2013 Ex.P.27 - Certified copy of wound certificate Ex.P.28 - Discharge summary Ex.P.29&30 2 medical prescriptions Ex.P.31 - 27 medical bills Ex.P.32 - 25 medical prescriptions Ex.P.33 - Certified copy of PM report Ex.P.34 - Certified copy of inquest panchanama Ex.P.35 - Notarised copy of election identity card Ex.P.36 - Notarised copy of election identity card Ex.P.37 - 2 medical bills Ex.P.38 - Recent OPD slip Ex.P.39-40 - 2 disability calculation sheet Ex.P.41&42- 2 X-rays Ex.P.43 - Recent OPD slip Ex.P.44 - Disability calculation sheet Ex.P.45 - Recent OPD slip Ex.P.46 - Disability calculation Ex.P.47 - 1 X-ray Ex.P.48 - Recent OPD slip Ex.P.49&50 2 X-rays along with report Ex.P.51 - Authorisation letter Ex.P.52 - MLC register extract SCCH-11 81 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640 6641, 6642/2013 Ex.P.53 - Case sheet of petitioner Naveen kumar Ex.P.54-69 - 16 X-rays, 7 reports, X-rays Ex.P.70 - MLC register extract Ex.P.71 - Case sheet Ex.P.72-75 - 4 X-rays Ex.P.76 - MLC register extract Ex.P.77 - Case sheet Ex.P.78&79 2 X-rays Ex.P.80 - MLC register extract Ex.P.81 - Case sheet Ex.P.82 - 1 X-rays Ex.P.83 - MLC register extract Ex.P.84 - Case sheet of petitioner Shobha Ex.P.85-87- 3 X-rays with reports Ex.P.88-101 14 CT scan films WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR RESPONDENTS : RW.1 - Amanulla Khan RW.2 - Kusuma.K RW.3 - Mohammed Nayaz Ahmed SCCH-11 82 MVC.No.6637, 6638, 6639, 6640 6641, 6642/2013 DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS : Ex.R.1 - True copy of driving licence smart card I ADDL. SCJ. & MACT.