Bangalore District Court
Ashok D N vs Narayana P M on 1 April, 2025
KABC020306082023
IN THE COURT OF III ADDL.JUDGE AND MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES BENGALURU
(SCCH-18)
Dated: this the 1st day of April 2025
Present: DHANESH MUGALI
B.Com., LL.B.,(Spl.)
III ADDL. JUDGE & MEMBER, MACT,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU.
MVC No.6512/2023
Petitioner : Shri Ashok D.N.,
Son of Narasimha Gowda,
Aged about 39 years,
Residing at No.216,
13th C Main, HMT Layout,
PO Msrit, Mathikere,
Bengaluru-560 054.
(Pleader by Shri Suresha G.A.,)
V/s.
Respondents : 1. Narayana P.M.,
Son of Subba Poojary,
M/s Nishmitha Motors,
Moodabidri,
Mangalore-574 227.
(Exparte)
SCCH-18 2 MVC No.6512/2023
2. The Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd., Regional Office,
No.44/45, Leo Shopping
Complex,
Residency Road,
Bengaluru-560 025.
(By Pleader Shri Manoj Kumar
M.R.)
JUDGMENT
The petitioner filed this petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident.
The brief facts of the petitioner's case are as under:
2. That on 1.8.2023 at about 9.45 p.m. the petitioner was proceeding in his two wheeler bearing registration No.KA-04-JX-5544 from Mahalakshmi Entrance towards Iskon on the left side on West of Chord Road, when he reached near Ganesh U turn, Bengaluru, at that time suddenly the driver of the Bus bearing registration No.KA-51-A-0630 came with high speed in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the motor cycle. Due to the impact, the SCCH-18 3 MVC No.6512/2023 petitioner fell down, the wheels of the bus ran over the legs of the petitioner.
3. It is further stated that, immediately after the accident the petitioner was shifted to Sri Sai Kanva hospital, in an Ambulance, wherein he took the first aid treatment then he was referred to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, wherein he was treated as an inpatient and underwent surgery, his left knee amputation. He has incurred sum of Rs.5,00,000/-
towards treatment and hospitalization charges.
4. It is stated that, prior to the accident the petitioner was hale, healthy and working as a delivery boy and earning a sum of Rs.45,000/- per month. Due to accidental injuries he could not able to do his work as earlier.
5. It is stated that, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bus bearing registration No.KA-51-AJ-0630. Hence, jurisdictional Police have registered criminal case against driver of the offending vehicle in Crime No.318/2023. As such, the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the SCCH-18 4 MVC No.6512/2023 petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has filed the instant petition, seeking compensation.
6. In response to the notices, respondent No.1 did not appear before this tribunal, remained absent, hence placed exparte. The respondent No.2 appeared through its counsel and filed the written statement.
7. In the written statement of the respondent No.2 has contended that petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is the contention of the respondent No.2 that there is one day delay in filing the complaint. It is also contention of the respondent No.2 that, driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving license as on the date of the accident. It is the defence of the respondent No.2 that the accident occurred due to skid and fall from the motor cycle as the petitioner was unable to control the two wheeler. Further this respondent has admitted the issuance of insurance policy in respect of Bus bearing registration No.KA- 04-JX-5544. Further denied the age, avocation and income of the petitioner. Ultimately stated that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive, exaggerated, arbitrary and speculative.
SCCH-18 5 MVC No.6512/2023With all these main grounds, prayed to dismiss the petition with cost.
8. On the basis of rival pleadings of both the parties, this court has framed the following issues;
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, he had sustained grievous injuries in a motor vehicle accident which is the result of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing registration No.KA-51- AJ-0630?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation? If so, at what rate? from whom?
3. What order or award?
9. In order to substantiate his case, the petitioner examined himself as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P17. In addition to his evidence placed the evidence of Dr.Chidanand K.J.C. as PW2 and got marked the documents at Ex.P18 to Ex.P20.
SCCH-18 6 MVC No.6512/202310. On the other hand, the respondent No.2 has examined its official as RW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.R1 to R3.
11. The counsel for the petitioner has filed the written arguments. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and perused the materials available on record.
12. At the time of argument the counsel for the petitioner has relied the following decisions;
1) 2023 ACJ 585 between G.Vivek Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., & Another Wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that, "prosthesis needs to be changed in every five years. Accordingly, the Tribunal should award compensation towards maintenance of prosthesis."
2) 2019 ACJ 923 between New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. R.Nagaraj & Another
3) 2023 ACJ 816 between Rajan Vs. Anil Varghese and another Wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Madras held that, "due to amputation of both legs, injured is not in a position to do any work on his own, he will be dependent on others throughout his life for his day-to-day activities and he cannot discharge his marital obligations. In such cases, the tribunal can award towards attendants charges and loss of marital pleasure."
SCCH-18 7 MVC No.6512/20234) 2019 ACJ 966 between ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Harminder Singh Rosha & Others Wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Hariyana held that reimbursement of medical expenses under mediclaim policy is liable to be adjusted while calculating compensation towards medical expenses. However, claimant is entitled to the amount paid for purchasing mediclaim policy.
5) SLP No.18337/2021 between K.S.Muralidhar Vs. K.Subbulakshmi & Another Wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, "the concept of just compensation rests on the principle of restitutio ad integrum which means restoration to be original condition as far as possible taking the person to whom damages are awarded, to a position as if the accident had never occurred."
13. The counsel for the respondent No.1 has relied the following decisions
1) 1994 ACJ 1303 between Mataji Bewa & Others Vs. Hemanth Kumar Jeena & Others The Hon'ble High Court of Orissa has held that, "contents of charge sheet cannot be treated as an evidence in a claim proceeding. Tribunal must rely upon the evidence led before it.
2) 2010 (2) TAC 194 (Ker.) between Rajan Vs. P.N.Raghavan & Others The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala held that, "a judgment of a criminal court is not binding on the Tribunal to decide question of negligence."
SCCH-18 8 MVC No.6512/20233) ILR 2009 KAR 2921 between Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. B. C. Kumar & Another The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that, "MACT should not and ought not to place sole reliance on the judgment of the criminal court while considering the issue of the factum of the accident and the consequent negligence as stated in the claim petition filed before the tribunal. But, the Tribunal will have to assess the evidence before it independently of any finding of the criminal court on the question of the driver pleading guilty."
4) 2023 Live Law (SC) 531 between Mathew Alexander Vs. Mohammed Shafi & Another.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that, "while considering a petition for compensation for death or injury in a road accident, the standard of proof to be applied by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, is the preponderance of probabilities and the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt would not apply. The final report in the criminal investigation connected to the accident would not have a bearing on the claim petition and that the claim petition must be considered on its own merits."
5) 2012 AIR SCW 2241 between Surinder Kumar Arora & Another Vs. Dr.Manoj Bisla & Others The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that, "onus to prove that of rash and negligent driving by driver of vehicle was on claimants."
SCCH-18 9 MVC No.6512/20236) Civil Appeal No.6151/2021 between National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Chamundeswari & Others
7) Criminal Petition No.5509/2007 between Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd., & Another Vs. State By Halsur Gate Police, Bengaluru & Others The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that, "if any evidence before the Tribunal runs contrary to the contents in the first information report, the evidence which is recorded before the criminal has to be equal weightage over the contents of the first information report."
8) MFA 9736/2018 between The Manager, IFFICO-TOKIO GIC Ltd., Vs. Ramesh C.V. & Another The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that, "filing of the charge sheet is always not a gospel truth proving all the aspects as contended by the claimants. Therefore, the tribunal is duty bound to consider and appreciate the case on record, which are placed before it, independent of charge sheet. The charge sheet may be taken for corroborative purpose only in appreciating the evidence on record."
9) SLP 14212/2020 between the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Zakir Hussain & Others The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that, "there is no product for which lifetime warranty can be given."
SCCH-18 10 MVC No.6512/202314. My answer to the aforesaid issues are as follows:
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative.
Issue No.2: Partly in the Affirmative.
Issue No.3: As per final order,
for the following:
R E A S O N S
ISSUE No.1:-
15. It is the specific case of the petitioner that due to the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the Bus bearing registration No.KA-51-AJ- 0630 the alleged accident had taken place, consequently he had sustained grievous injuries.
16. On the other hand, the respondent No.2 though not disputed the accident and the injuries sustained by the petitioner, but seriously disputed the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle.
17. The petitioner in order to prove his case, examined himself as PW1. In his examination-in- chief by way of affidavit has reiterated the averments made in the petition. The petitioner in support of his oral evidence has relied upon Ex.P1 to Ex.P10.
SCCH-18 11 MVC No.6512/2023Ex.P1- true copy of FIR, Ex.P2-true copy of first information statement, Ex.P3-true copy of charge sheet, Ex.P4-true copy of MLC, Ex.P5-true copy of spot mahazar, Ex.P6 -true copy of spot sketch, Ex.P7-true copy of IMV report, Ex.P8 notice u/s 133 of MV Act, Ex.P9-reply to notice, Ex.P10-true copy of wound certificate.
18. On perusal of the police documents, it could be seen that, based upon the first information statement given by the petitioner, the S.H.O. of Malleshwaram Traffic Police has registered the case in Cr.No.318/2023 against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offences punishable under sections 279 & 337 of IPC an d 134(a & b) of IMV Act. Upon the investigation the police have filed the charge sheet against driver of the offending vehicle for the offences punishable under section 279, 338 of IPC and Section 134(a & b) R/w Section of 187 of IMV Act.
19. The respondent No.2 has disputed the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and examined Legal Manager of the insurance company as RW1. But his evidence will SCCH-18 12 MVC No.6512/2023 not much helpful to prove his case. Further respondent No.2 has not made an effort to examine either the driver of the offending vehicle or any of the independent witness who witnessed the alleged accident to disprove the case of the petitioner.
20. Apart from this, even at the time of cross- examination of PW1, no material answers culled out to believe the defenses of the respondent No.2 about the denial of allegation made against the driver of the offending vehicle.
21. In the light of the evidence placed on record, it is crystal clear that, the alleged accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bus bearing registration No.KA-51- AJ-0630. As such, the petitioner has placed the satisfactory and convincing evidence on record to prove the above issue. Hence, without making much discussion on the point of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, I am answering the issue No.1 in the Affirmative.
SCCH-18 13 MVC No.6512/2023ISSUE No.2:
22. This issue is with respect to the entitlement of reliefs claimed by the petitioner. The petitioner through this petition, claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident under different heads.
23. Before appreciation of the evidence placed by the petitioner about the injuries sustained by him, in the accident and its consequences, it is apt to note herein, the preposition laid down in the following land mark judgment, while appreciating the injury cases in Motor Vehicle Act.
Civil Appeal No.8981/2010 D.D. 18.10.2010 Rajkumar V/s Ajay Kumar & Another of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
"In the aforesaid case, it was held that, the court has to make judicious attempt to award compensation to the loss suffered by the claimant. The compensation should not be assessed conservatively. On the other hand, compensation should also not be endeavouring to secure some uniformity and consistency. The object of awarding compensation is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done, as far as money can do so, in a fair reasonable and SCCH-18 14 MVC No.6512/2023 equitable manner." "while determining quantum of compensation, in such cases, the court has to strike a balance between the inflated and unreasonable demands of a victim and the equally untenable claim of the opposite party saying that nothing is payable. That sympathy for the victim does not, and should not, comes in the way of making a correct assessment. But if a case is made out, and the court must not be chary of awarding adequate compensation. "
Pain and Sufferings;
24. PW1 has stated in his evidence that, he has sustained the injuries in a road traffic accident. In connection with the injuries he has produced wound certificate marked as Ex.P10. The said document discloses that, he had sustained the following injuries:-
Lacerated wound over right foot 10x7x5 cms exposing underlying soft tissue Degloving injury on right leg heal pad-avulsion Deformity of Left leg X-ray shows tibia B/L calcaneum Avulsion right heal pad
25. In connection with the above said injuries the doctor is of the opinion that, the said injuries are grievous in nature. In addition to his evidence, SCCH-18 15 MVC No.6512/2023 placed the evidence of Dr.Chidanand K.J.C. as PW2. PW2 has stated in his evidence that petitioner has sustained rleft proximal tibia fracture and bilateral calcaneal fracture and underwent multiple surgeries in the form of above vascular repair and knee amputation and wound debridement and VAC dressing and SSG. He has placed case sheet and final bill, clinical notes and x-ray as per ex.P18, Ex.P18(a), Ex.P19 & Ex.P20. Further, the petitioner has produced discharge summary marked at Ex.12. On going through the discharge summaries marked at Ex.P11 & Ex.P12 issued by Sanjay Gandhi Hospital disclose that the petitioner was admitted from 2.8.2023 to 14.9.2023 and from 27.1.2024 to 31.1.2024. By taking into consideration of the nature of the injuries and the treatment taken by the petitioner, he could have undergone pain and sufferings while taking treatment as an in patient as well as an outpatient. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- under the head of Pain and Sufferings.
Loss of income during treatment period:
26. PW1 has stated that, he was working as a delivery boy and was earning Rs.45,000/- per SCCH-18 16 MVC No.6512/2023 month. There is no iota of documents to show his income. In the absence of the documents, notional income has to be considered. On going through the discharge summaries marked at Ex.P11 & Ex.P12 issued by Sanjay Gandhi Hospital disclose that the petitioner was admitted from 2.8.2023 to 14.9.2023 and from 27.1.2024 to 31.1.2024. During the period of treatment, definitely, there was some difficulty to him to do daily routine work and to do his work for livelihood atleast for six months. Hence, I am of the view that, it is just and proper to award compensation of Rs.96,000/- towards loss of income during the laid up period and rest period.
Medical Expeneses;
27. The petitioner in connection with his treatment expenses, at the time of his evidence, placed medical bills of Rs.3,18,336/- as per Ex.P15 along with advance receipts at Ex.P16. Further placed medical bills at Rs.9,800/- at Ex.P17 in toto Rs.3,28,136/-. At the time of cross-examination, suggested that at Ex.P15 Sl.No.62 to 64 are advance payment receipts of Rs.20,000/- Rs.10,000/- and Rs.35,000/- in toto Rs.65,000/-, for which PW1 stated that hospital authorities will produce those bills. On perusal of the medical bills advance amount SCCH-18 17 MVC No.6512/2023 was included in the medical bills. After deducting Rs.65,000/- from Rs.3,28,136/- it comes to Rs.2,63,136/-. Hence, it is just and proper to award compensation of Rs.2,63,136/- towards medical expenses.
Attendant charges, food and nourishment and conveyance charges;
28. The petitioner herein, as per the medical records and also on going through the discharge summaries, the petitioner has taken treatment as an inpatient and as an outpatient, definitely he could have spent some amount towards, food, nourishment, conveyance, as well as towards attendant charges. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- towards attendant charges, food, nourishment and conveyance charges.
Loss of future income;
29. The petitioner herein, asserting that, he had sustained permanent disability, consequent upon the injuries sustained by him. In order to prove the same, the petitioner has relied on his evidence along with the wound certificate as per Ex.P7 goes to show that, he had sustained grievous SCCH-18 18 MVC No.6512/2023 injuries. Apart from this, another material witness by name Dr.Chidanand K.J.C. examined as PW2. PW2 has stated in his evidence that the petitioner has sustained left proximnal tibia fracture and bilateral calcaneal fracture and underwent multiple surgeries in the form of above vascular repair and knee amputation and wound debridement and VAC dressing and SSG and discharged on 14.9.2023.
30. PW2 further deposed that, on recent examination of the petitioner on 31.7.2024, pain and tenderness over hip, above knee amputation upper 1/3rd altered sensation over surgical scar mark stiffness of hip joint, neuroma at the stump x-ray shows amputation for above knee upper 1/3rd. Based on clinical examination, came to the conclusion that, the petitioner has suffers permanent physical disability for limb contributing to the whole body 85%. In support of evidence of PW2, placed case sheet and final bill, clinical notes and x-ray as per Ex.P18, Ex.P18(a) to Ex.P20.
31. At the time of cross-examination he has denied the suggestion that 85% disability of the petitioner is on higher side, as per Workmen SCCH-18 19 MVC No.6512/2023 Compensation Act, above the knee disability is at 65- 70%. Further he denied the suggestion that, he assessed the disability of the petitioner in higher side, only to protect him and to get higher compensation.
32. Over all appreciation of the injuries sustained by the petitioner, as well as his age, as on the date of the accident and the nature of the work he was doing as on the date of the accident along with the appreciation of evidence of PW2 in toto, I am of the view that, due to the accident the petitioner had total amputation for above knee upper 1/3rd. As such, the disability is not only the physical disability, but also he will face life long functional disability towards his day-to-day life as well as towards his work for avocation. Accordingly, it is apt to take the functional disability of the petitioner as 60%. The same will meet the ends of justice.
33. In connection with the age of the petitioner is concerned, on going through the cause title of the petition reveals that, as on the date of the petition, his age was 39 years. In support of the age proof, he has placed driving licence and Aadhar card marked SCCH-18 20 MVC No.6512/2023 at Ex.P13 & Ex.P14 for consideration. On going through the said documents, the date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as 20.3.1984. The accident occurred on 1.8.2023. Therefore, as on the date of accident, the age of the petitioner is considered as 39 years. To the said age as per Sarla Verma case, multiplier '15' is to be taken into consideration.
34. Next factual aspect of the income of the petitioner is concerned, in his evidence the petitioner has stated that, prior to the accident he was working as a Delivery boy at Zomato and earning Rs.45,000/- per month. The petitioner has not placed any documents to show that he was earning Rs.45,000/- per month. In such a situation, as per law notional income has to be taken into consideration. But the said notional income is to be taken judiciously, by taking into consideration of the year of the accident. It is pertinent to note that, in the case on hand, the alleged accident had taken place in the year 2023. As per the notional income chart, I am of the view that, it is apt to take the notional income of the petitioner as Rs.16,000/- for the year 2023. Since the petitioner had knee amputation upper 1/3rd, consequent upon the accident, 40% future prospects SCCH-18 21 MVC No.6512/2023 also to be considered herein. Accordingly, the petitioner's income has been taken as Rs.16,000/- per month. If, future prospects of 40% is taken into consideration, it will comes at Rs.6,400/-. In toto, the income of the petitioner is at Rs.22,400/- per month.
35. In the light of my detailed discussions held above, no doubt injuries sustained by the petitioner, definitely come in the way of his future, to do his daily routine work as well as to do his work for avocation. The petitioner herein, has lost one leg which is an important organ for day-to-day activities and for work of the petitioner, towards his livelihood along with the family. Hence, by keeping in mind this material aspect, the petitioner herein, is entitled for compensation under loss of future income as follows:
Rs.22,400 X 12 X 15 X 60/100= Rs.24,19,200/-. Loss of amenities;
36. Next aspect is to consider the loss of amenities is concerned, on going to the injuries mentioned in the wound certificate, and also as per the evidence of the doctor PW2, fully discussed above, it is pertinent to note that, due to the accidental injuries, the petitioner's left lower limb SCCH-18 22 MVC No.6512/2023 was amputated. Since leg is important organ in the human body, to lead normal life, loosing one leg, definitely will cause great hardship to the injured. Due to the said disability, he will suffer not only physically, but also, psychological impact too will cause to him. Though no fault on his side, he has to suffer a lot through out his life at this age. By looking in to the photos placed by the petitioner also, reveals the genuineness of the problem of the petitioner and he has to lead his future life along with the said permanent disability. By keeping in mind about the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the accident and its consequences and also by taking in to consideration of the age criteria and future of the petitioner, some liberal approach is needed to consider the compensation of the petitioner, under this head. As such, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities.
37. In connection with the future medication, PW2 has stated that petitioner requires aritficial limb prosthesis at an approximate cost of Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-. It appears that the petitiioner is already using artificial limb. By considering the SCCH-18 23 MVC No.6512/2023 nature of the grievousness of the injuries, it is just and proper to award compensation of Rs.50,000/- under the head of future medical expenses.
38. In view of my discussions held above, on various aspects the petitioner is entitled for compensation in to to, under the following heads:
Compensation heads Compensation
amount
1.Pain and Suffering Rs. 1,50,000-00
2.Loss of income during Rs. 96,000-00
laid-up period and rest
period
3. Medical expenses Rs. 2,63,136-00
4. Attendant, Nourishment Rs. 1,50,000-00 and Conveyance Charges
5. Loss of future income Rs.24,19,200-00
6. Loss of Amenities Rs. 1,00,000-00
7. Future medication Rs. 50,000-00 Total Rs.32,28,336-00
39. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.32,28,336/- (Rupees thirty two lakh twenty eight thousand three hundred and thirty six only), along with interest @ 6% per annum, as per the proposition laid down by the Honourable High court of Karnataka in, MFA SCCH-18 24 MVC No.6512/2023 No.103557/2016, between Sri Ram General Insurance Company Limited V/S. Lakshmi And Others dated. 20.03.2018. And MFA No.30131/2019 dated.12.5.2020, from the date of the petition, till the realization of the award amount.
LIABILITY:
40. As regards the liability is concerned, it is the assertion of the petitioner that, due to actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the Bus bearing registration No.KA-51-AJ-0630 alleged accident had taken place. The evidence given by the petitioner in connection with the issue No.1, remained unshaken.
41. As per the records, the policy was valid from 13.1.2023 to 12.1.12024. The alleged accident was taken place on 1.8.2023. As such, I am of the view that, the respondent No.1 being the owner and the respondent No.2 being insurance company of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. In view of the valid insurance policy, the respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation SCCH-18 25 MVC No.6512/2023 with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition, till its realization. Accordingly, I am answering the issue No.2 partly in the Affirmative.
ISSUE N0.3:
42. In view of above discussions on issue Nos.1 & 2, I proceed to pass the following;
O R D E R The claim petition filed by the petitioner U/s 166 of M.V. Act is partly allowed with cost.
The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.32,28,336/- (Rupees thirty two lakh twenty eight thousand three hundred and thirty six only) along with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of the petition till the realization of the award amount.
The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. In view of the valid insurance policy, the respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization within two months from the date of this order.
SCCH-18 26 MVC No.6512/2023 The expenses to be incurred for
future medication shall not carry any
interest.
After deposit of the compensation
amount with interest, 40% is directed to be deposited in any Nationalized/Scheduled bank in F.D for a period of 3 years and remaining 60% shall be released to the petitioner through due process of law.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 1st day of April 2025).
(DHANESH MUGALI) III ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER MACT & ACJM, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on petitioner's side:
PW1 Shri Ashok D.N. PW2 Dr. Chidanand K.J.C.
List of documents exhibited on petitioner's side:
Ex.P1 FIR
SCCH-18 27 MVC No.6512/2023
Ex.P2 First information statement
Ex.P3 Charge sheet
Ex.P4 MLC
Ex.P5 Spot mahazar
Ex.P6 Spot sketch
Ex.P7 IMV report
Ex.P8 Notice u/s 133 of MV Act
Ex.P9 Reply to notice u/s 133 of MV
Act
Ex.P10 Wound certificate
Ex.P11 Discharge summary
Ex.P12 Discharge Summary
Ex.P13 Driving licence
Ex.P14 Aadhar card
Ex.P15 Medical bills
Ex.P16 Advance receipts
Ex.P17 Medical bills
Ex.P18 & Case sheet and final bill
Ex.P18(a)
Ex.P19 Clinical Notes
Ex.P20 X-ray
List of witnesses examined on respondents' side:
RW1 Shri C.S.Venugopal List of documents exhibited on respondents' side:
Ex.R1 Authorization letter
Ex.R2 Insurance Policy
Ex.R3 MLC
III ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE
MEMBER MACT & ACJM,
BENGALURU.