Bangalore District Court
Chaithanya K.N vs Hdfc Ergo General Ins Co Ltd on 4 November, 2024
KABC020003872023
BEFORE THE COURT OF 10th ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES
AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
AT: BENGALURU
(SCCH-16)
Present: Sri. Mohammed Yunus Athani
B.A.,LL.B.,
X Additional Court of Small Causes
& Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
MVC No.95/2023
Dated this 04th day of November, 2024
Petitioner: Miss. Chaithanya K. N.,
D/o Narayanaswamy K. G.,
Aged about 23 years,
R/at 4th Cross, Nirvaneshwara Nagar,
Behind Girish Kalyana Mantap,
Kanakapura - 562117,
Ramanagar District.
Local Address:
1st Cross, Anjanapura,
Avalahalli, Bengaluru.
(Sri Ramakrishna P., Advocate)
Vs.
Respondents: 1. HDFC Ergo General Insurance,
TP Claims Hub, No.25/1,
2nd Floor, Building No.2,
2 MVC No.95/2023
Shankaranarayana Building No.1,
M. G. Road,
Bengaluru - 560001.
(Policy No.2302204910858100000
valid from 23-09-2022 to
22-09-2023)
(Sri K. Suresh, Advocate)
2. Mr. Thimma Reddy
S/o Muni Reddy,
No.144 - DE, Hennagara Road,
Chandapura Circle,
Kittaganahalli, Bengaluru.
(Owner of the car bearing
No. KA-51-MC-2212)
(Sri Govindappa J., Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This is petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, seeking compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- from the respondents, for the grievous injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road traffic accident.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
On 22-12-2022 at about 3:15 p.m., the petitioner being a bank employee, after completion of work she was 3 MVC No.95/2023 returning to her home by walk, carefully and cautiously, on the left side of the road. When she was infront of Chowdeshwari Bakery, T. K. Halli village Bus-stop, Kanakapura-Malavalli road, Mandya District, all of a sudden the driver of the Chevrolet Spark car bearing No. KA-51-MC- 2212 came in a rash and negligent manner and without observing the traffic rules and regulation in high speed and dashed to the petitioner. Due to the said impact, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries on her head, right hand, leg and other parts of the body. Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to Government Hospital, Kanakapura, wherein she took first aid treatment and thereafter, she was shifted to Chandramma Dayananda Sagar Hospital and again she was shifted to Astra Hosptial, Bengaluru, wherein she took further treatment as an indoor patient. Earlier to the accident, she was working as Relationship Customer Executive (Credit Card) at Bank of Baroda, T. K. Halli Branch, Bengaluru and was earning a 4 MVC No.95/2023 sum of Rs.25,000/- per month. But, due to the accidental injuries, she became permanently disabled and thereby lost her earning capacity. The Halagur Police have registered the case against the driver of the said Chevrolet Spark car for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 337 of I.P.C. The respondent No.1 is the insurer and respondent No.2 is the owner of the offending vehicle. Hence, they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Therefore, it is prayed to allow the petition and award compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
3. On service of notice to the respondents, the respondents No.1 and 2 appeared through their counsels and filed their separate written statements.
4. The respondent No.1 in its written statement has denied all the allegations made in the petition. It has admitted the issuance of insurance policy in respect of car 5 MVC No.95/2023 bearing No. KA-51-MC-2212 in favour of respondent No.2 and the same was valid as on the date of accident. It seeks protection under Section 147 and 149 of Motor Vehicles Act. It has contended that, the petition is bad for non compliance of provision under Sections 134(c) and 158(6) of M.V. Act. It has further contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence to drove the same. It has further contended that, the offending vehicle had no fitness certificate as on the date of alleged accident. It has further contended that, the car in question was not at all involved in the accident, nor it has caused accidental injuries to the petitioner. The petitioners in order get compensation, in collusion with jurisdictional police, have falsely implicated the said vehicle in the case by lodging false complaint and have got created false records. It has contended that, the accident has occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner, who was crossing the road carelessly, without having proper look out at vehicular 6 MVC No.95/2023 movements of the road and without noticing the on coming vehicles. At the time of accident the car was being driven in a reasonable speed and careful manner and there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the car. It has further contended that the petition is bad for non- joinder of proper and necessary parties to the petitioner. Further, it sought for permission to contest even on behalf of respondent No.1 as per Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It has denied the age, injuries, medical expenses and treatment taken by the petitioner. It is further contended that, the compensation claimed is highly excessive and exaggerated. In view of above denials and contentions, it prayed for dismissal of the petition.
5. Likewise, the respondent No.2 in his written statement has denied all the allegations made in the petition. He has contended that, the accident is occurred due to negligence on the part of injured herself, as she was walking in the middle of the road without any due care or caution. He has 7 MVC No.95/2023 further contended that, the accident has occurred on Kanakapura-Malavalli road and Halagur Police have registered the criminal case. Therefore, the claim petition before this Hon'ble Tribunal is not maintainable for want of jurisdiction. He has further contended that, the driver of the car was having effective and valid driving licence and insurance policy was in force as on the date of accident. Hence, in case of any compensation is to be awarded by this Hon'ble Tribunal, the liability shall be fixed on the respondent No.1. In view of above denials and contentions, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6. On the basis of rival pleadings of both the sides, the following issues are framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, she has sustained grievous injuries in a motor vehicle accident, alleged to have occurred on 22-12-2022, at about 3:15 p.m., due to rash and negligent driving 8 MVC No.95/2023 of the driver of Chevrolet Spark Car bearing Reg. No.KA-51-MC-2212 ?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what is the quantum and from whom ?
3. What order or Award ?
7. In order to prove her case, the petitioner has got examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked 32 documents as Ex.P.1 to 32. Further, she has got examined four more witnesses namely K. M. Siddesh, Praveena C., B. Ramesh and Dr. S. A. Somashekara as P.W.2 to P.W.5 and closed her side. On the other hand, the respondents No.1 and 2 have not adduced any evidence on their behalf.
8. I have heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the entire material placed on record.
9. My findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1: Affirmative 9 MVC No.95/2023 Issue No.2: Partly Affirmative Issue No.3: As per the final order, for the following:
REASONS
10. Issue No.1: It is specific case of the petitioner that, on 22-12-2022 at about 3:15 p.m., the petitioner being a bank employee, after completion of work she was returning to her home by walk, carefully and cautiously, on the left side of the road. When she was infront of Chowdeshwari Bakery, T. K. Halli village Bus-stop, Kanakapura-Malavalli road, Mandya District, all of a sudden the driver of the Chevrolet Spark car bearing No. KA-51-MC-2212 came in a rash and negligent manner and without observing the traffic rules and regulation in high speed and dashed to the petitioner. Due to the said impact, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries on her head, right hand, leg and other parts of the body. Further it is contended that, earlier to the accident, she was working as Relationship Customer Executive (Credit 10 MVC No.95/2023 Card) at Bank of Baroda, T. K. Halli Branch, Bengaluru and was earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month. But, due to the accidental injuries, she has became permanently disabled and has lost her earning capacity.
11. In order to prove her case, the petitioner has got examined herself as P.W.1 by filing examination-in-chief affidavit, wherein she has reiterated entire averments made in the petition. Further, in support of her oral evidence, the petitioner has got marked total 32 documents as Ex.P.1 to
32. Out of the said documents, Ex.P.1 is true copy of F.I.R., Ex.P.2 is true copy of first information statement, Ex.P.3 is true copy of spot mahazar, Ex.P.4 is true copy of Motor Vehicle Accident Report, Ex.P.5 is true copy of wound certificate, Ex.P.6 is true copy of charge-sheet, Ex.P.7 is Out- patient record, Ex.P.8 is Discharge summary, Ex.P.9 are medical bills, Ex.P.10 are Travelling bills, Ex.P.11 are medical prescriptions, Ex.P.12 CT and MRI scan reports, Ex.P.13 OPD cards, Ex.P.14 is notarised copy of Aadhar card, Ex.P.15 is 11 MVC No.95/2023 Work Assignment letter, Ex.P.16 is Bank Statement, Ex.P.17 are photographs, Ex.P.18 is X-ray, Ex.P.19 is Authorisation letter, Ex.P.20 is MLC extract, Ex.P.21 is Case-sheet, Ex.P.22 are X-rays, Ex.P.23 are C.T. scan films, Ex.P.24 is Authorisation letter, Ex.P.25 is Case-sheet, Ex.P.26 is X-ray, Ex.P.27 is MLC extract, Ex.P.28 & 29 are Case-sheets, Ex.P.30 is Authorisation letter, Ex.P.31 is Clinical Note and Ex.P.32 is X-ray.
12. At the outset, is it pertinent to note that, the date, time and place of accident, issuance of insurance policy in favour of the respondent No.1 with respect to offending car bearing No. KA-51-MC-2212 and its validity as on the date of accident, are not in dispute. The P.W.1 has clearly deposed in the evidence that, on 22-12-2022 at about 3:15 p.m., when she was returning to her home by walk, carefully and cautiously, on the left side of the road, infront of Chowdeshwari Bakery, T. K. Halli bus-stop, Kanakapura- Malavalli road, Mandya District, all of a sudden the driver of 12 MVC No.95/2023 the Chevrolet Spark car bearing No. KA-51-MC-2212 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to her. Due to the which she has sustained grievous injuries on her head, right hand, leg and other parts of the body. The oral evidence of P.W.1 is fully corroborated with the documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioner and the evidence of P.W.2 to 5. Though, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 has cross-examined P.W.1 in length, nothing worth has been elicited from her mouth which creates doubt on the veracity of her evidence. Further, the petitioner/P.W.1 has unequivocally denied the suggestion made by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 in her cross- examination that, she has sustained injuries due to self fall from the bus, while she was boarding the bus and she had lodged false complaint against the car drive. Further, though the respondent No.1 & 2 have denied the said facts in their written statement and taken specific defence that, the accident has occurred due to the sole negligence of the 13 MVC No.95/2023 petitioner, as she was crossing the road carelessly, without having proper look out at vehicular movements of the road and without noticing the on coming vehicles. Further contended that, at the time of accident the offending car was being driven in a reasonable speed and careful manner and there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the car. But, the respondents have no adduced any evidence to establish the said contentions. Except the self servings statements of the respondents, there is absolutely no evidence placed on record by the respondents to establish the defence taken in their written statements or any rebuttal evidence to disprove the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioner.
13. It seems very strange to note that, the respondent No.1 has taken contrary stand in the case. At one point, in its written statement, the respondent No.1 has taken specific defence that, the car bearing No.KA-51-MC-2212 is not at all involved in the alleged accident and the same has 14 MVC No.95/2023 been falsely implicated by the petitioner in the case, by lodging false complaint against the driver of said vehicle. At the other point, in the same written statement, the respondent No.1 has contended that, the alleged accident has occurred due to the sole negligence of the petitioner, as she was crossing the road carelessly, without having proper look out at vehicular movements of the road and without noticing the on coming vehicles. At that time, the offending car was being driven in a reasonable speed and careful manner and there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the car. Whereas, in the cross- examination of P.W.1, the counsel for respondent No.1 has suggested that, the petitioner has sustained injuries due to self fall from the bus, while she was boarding the bus and she had lodged false complaint against the offending car drive.
14. On meticulously going through the police documents marked as Ex.P.1 to 6, prima-facia it reveals that, on 22-12- 15 MVC No.95/2023 2022 at about 3:15 p.m., when the petitioner was returning to her home by walk, on the left side of the road, infront of Chowdeshwari Bakery, T. K. Halli village Bus-stop, Kanakapura-Malavalli road, Mandya District, all of a sudden the driver of the Chevrolet Spark car bearing No. KA-51-MC- 2212 came in a rash and negligent manner and without observing the traffic rules and regulation and dashed to the petitioner from behind. Due to the said impact, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries on her head, right hand, leg and other parts of the body. The investigation officer has clearly stated in the final report, marked as Ex.P.6, that, the alleged accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending car bearing No.KA- 51-MC-2212.
15. The Ex.P.2 spot mahazer also clearly speaks that, the said accident has taken place on the extreme left side of 33 feet wide Kanakapura-Malavalli road, infront of Chowdeshwari Bakery, T. K. Halli village Bus-stop, Mandya 16 MVC No.95/2023 District, where the petitioner was walking in order to board the bus and the offending car bearing No. KA-51-MC-2212 came from behind and dashed to the petitioner. Further, as per the Motor Vehicle Accident Report, which is marked as Ex.P.4, the accident is not caused due to any mechanical defects in the vehicle involved in the accident. When the accident was not caused due to the any mechanical defects in the offending vehicle and there was not negligence on the part of the petitioner, then in the present facts and circumstances of the case it can be presumed that, the said accident had occurred due to negligence of the rider of offending vehicle. There is absolutely no rebuttal evidence placed on record by the respondents and even nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.1 to show that, the said accident is caused due to sole negligence of the petitioner and not due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending car. Even, nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.1 to show that, there was 17 MVC No.95/2023 some contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner as well. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioner. Further, admittedly the Ex.P.6 charge-sheet has not been challenged by the owner/driver of the offending car KA-51-MC-2212. In such circumstances, there is no impediment to believe the final report filed by the investigation officer and other police records, regarding the date, time and place of accident, involvement of the offending vehicle, rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle and injuries caused to the petitioner in the said accident.
16. Further, on meticulously going through the Ex.P.5 wound certificate, Ex.P.8 discharge summary, Ex.P.12 CT scan and MRI scan reports, Ex.P.13 OPD cards and Ex.P.18 X-ray, it reveals that, the petitioner has suffered grievous injuries in a road traffic accident and she has suffered 18 MVC No.95/2023 Fracture of Displaced Comminuted Fracture Distal Ulna Right and Complete ACL Tear Left Knee and she has undergone surgery in the form of ORIF with DCP and Screw Right Ulna under BB and Athosscopic ACL reconstruction with Synovial Biopsy under SA. Further, the P.W.5, who is the doctor who has examined the petitioner for the purpose of assessment of disability, has clearly deposed in his evidence that, on 07-11-2023 the petitioner approached him for the purpose of assessment of his disability. On clinical and radiological examination he found that, the petitioner had fracture suffered Fracture of Displaced Comminuted Fracture Distal Ulna Right and Complete ACL Tear Left Knee and she has undergone surgery in the form of ORIF with DCP and Screw Right Ulna under BB and Arthroscopic ACL reconstruction with Synovial Biopsy under SA. Though, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 has cross-examined P.W.5 in length, nothing worth has been elicited from his mouth which creates doubt on the veracity 19 MVC No.95/2023 of his evidence. On the other hand, there is no rebuttal evidence placed on record by the respondent No.1 to show that, the above medical records produced by the petitioner are false created documents. In such circumstances and in the light of above observations, it can be safely held that, the respondent No.1 has failed to rebut the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioner, regarding the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending car bearing Reg. No.KA-51-MC-2212 and injuries suffered by the petitioner in the said accident.
17. Further, it is well settled principle of law that, in a case relating to the Motor Accident Claims, the claimants are not required to prove the case as required to be done in a criminal trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parameshwari V/s Amir Chand and others, reported in (2011) SCC 635, has clearly held that, "in a road accident claim cases the strict principle of proof in a criminal case are not required."
20 MVC No.95/2023
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Bimla Devi and others V/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, reported in (2009) 13 SCC 513, has clearly held that, " in a case relating to the Motor Accident Claims, the claimants are merely required to establish their case on touch stone of preponderance of probability and the standard of proof on beyond reasonable doubt could not be applied."
19. Therefore, in the light of observations made in the above cited decisions and for the above stated reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that, the petitioner has successfully proved that, she has sustained grievous injuries in a motor vehicle accident, occurred on 22-12- 2022, at about 3:15 p.m., infront of Chowdeshwari Bakery, T. K. Halli village Bus-stop, Kanakapura-Malavalli road, Mandya District, due to rash and negligent driving of the 21 MVC No.95/2023 driver of offending car bearing Reg. No.KA-51-MC-2212. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 in Affirmative.
20. Issue No.2: While answering above issue this Court has come to conclusion that, the petitioner has successfully proved that, the alleged accident has caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending car bearing Reg. No.KA-51-MC-2212 and she has sustained Fracture of Displaced Comminuted Fracture Distal Ulna Right and Complete ACL Tear Left Knee in the said accident and for the said injuries she has undergone surgery. Therefore, this Court is of the further opinion that, the petitioner is entitled for compensation under various heads. The damages are to be assessed under two heads i.e. pecuniary damages, such as medical treatment, attendants, transport, actual loss of earning, future loss of earning etc., and non pecuniary damages, such as mental and physical shock, loss of amenities, loss of expectation of life, loss of prospects of 22 MVC No.95/2023 marriage etc. The petitioner is entitled for compensation under the following heads:
i) Towards loss of future income: In order to determine the compensation towards loss of future income, the age, monthly income and disability of the petitioner are to be determined. To prove his age, the petitioner has produced the copy of his Aadhar card, which is marked as Ex.P.14. As per Ex.P.14, the date of birth of the petitioner is 24-01-1999. The accident has taken place on 22-12-2022 at about 3:15 p.m. Therefore, the age of the petitioner as on the date of accident is 23 years. Further, the P.W.5, who is the doctor who has examined the petitioner for the purpose of assessment of disability, on clinical and radiological examination of the petitioner he found that, the petitioner had suffered Fracture of Displaced Comminuted Fracture Distal Ulna Right and Complete ACL Tear Left Knee and she has undergone surgery in the form of ORIF with DCP and Screw Right Ulna under BB and Arthroscopic ACL 23 MVC No.95/2023 reconstruction with Synovial Biopsy under SA. Further he has deposed that, on clinical and radiological examination of the injuries suffered by the petitioner he found that, there is 30% physical disability of right upper limb, 55% physical disability of right both limbs and 27% physical disability to the whole body. The oral evidence of P.W.5 is fully corroborated with documentary evidence. Though, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 has cross-examined P.W.2 in length, nothing worth has been elicited from his mouth which creates doubt on the veracity of his evidence.
Further, he has clearly denied the suggestions made to him in the cross-examination that, the petitioner has not suffered any fracture, there is no disability to the petitioner as stated by him and he has exaggerated the percentage of disability to the petitioner. Further, he has denied the suggestions that, there is no restriction of movements to the wrist and the knee region, there is no loss of muscle power at the wrist and knee region. But, it is pertinent to 24 MVC No.95/2023 note that, the P.W.5 has deposed in his evidence that, the accident has occurred on 22-12-2022 and he has assessed the disability to the petitioner on 07-11-2023, which is after lapse of 11 months from the date of injuries suffered by the petitioner. Further he has stated that, the petitioner requires one more surgery for removal of the implants. This clearly goes to show that, the disability has been assessed before the completion of full treatment. As per the gazette notification issued by the Ministry of Social Justice of Government of India, the disability should be assessed after completion of treatment. If the disability had been assessed after future surgery for removal of implants, perhaps there would have been reduction in the percentage of the disability. Further, it is pertinent to note that, P.W.5 has clearly deposed in his evidence that, the fractures suffered by the petitioner are united with implants in situ. Therefore, in the light of above observations, considering the age of the petitioner, injuries sustained by her, duration of 25 MVC No.95/2023 treatment and the oral and documentary evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that, considering the disability of 10% to the whole body of the petitioner would be justified. Hence, in the instant case the disability of 10% to the whole body of the petitioner is considered.
a) The petitioner has deposed in her evidence that, before accident she was working as Relationship Customer Executive (Credit Card) at Bank of Baroda and was getting salary of Rs.25,000/- per month. Further she has deposed that, due to grievous injuries suffered in the said accident she is unable to do her work. The respondent No.1 has specifically denied the same. In such circumstances, the burden was on the petitioner to prove her avocation and income. But, the petitioner has failed to establish the same through cogent and corroborative evidence. She has not produced any document to show that, before accident she was working as Relationship Customer Executive (Credit Card) at Bank of Baroda and was getting salary of 26 MVC No.95/2023 Rs.25,000/- per month. Even, the petitioner has not taken any steps to prove the contents of Ex.P.15 Work Assignment Letter, by examining the author of said document. In such circumstances, there is no other option before this Court except to consider the notional income as per the guidelines of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The accident took place in 2022. Hence, the notional income of the petitioner is considered as Rs.15,500/- per month and the annual income of the petitioner as Rs.1,86,000/-.
b) As per the ratio laid down in the case of Sarla Verma and others V/s Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in 2009 ACJ 1298, the appropriate multiplier for a person whose is aged about 23 years is 18. Therefore, loss of future income is Total annual income X disability/100 X multiplier = Rs.1,86,000 X 10/100 X 18 = Rs.3,34,800/-.
ii) Medical expenses: The petitioner has deposed that, she has incurred expenses of Rs.3,00,000/- towards 27 MVC No.95/2023 medical, conveyance, nourishment and other incidental charge etc. In order to prove the same, she has produced 38 medical bills, as per Ex.P.9. But, in the cross-examination the P.W.1 has clearly admitted that, the medical bills have been paid by Star Insurance Company. Though the petitioner has stated in her cross-examination that, only 75% to 80% medical bills have been paid by the said insurance company, the petitioner has not produced any document to establish the same. Therefore, in such circumstances, considering that the entire medical bills have been paid by the Star Insurance Company, this Court is of the opinion that, the petitioner is not entitled for any compensation under the head of medical expenses.
iii) Pain and sufferings: In the present case the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries i.e. Fracture of Displaced Comminuted Fracture Distal Ulna Right and Complete ACL Tear Left Knee and she has undergone surgery in the form of ORIF with DCP and Screw Right Ulna 28 MVC No.95/2023 under BB and Arthroscopic ACL reconstruction with Synovial Biopsy under SA. As per Ex.P.4 discharge summaries, the petitioner has taken treatment as inpatient for 09 days on 24-12-2022 and from 26-12-2022 to 27-12- 2022, 26-04-2023 to 28-04-2023 and 01-05-2023 to 03-05- 2023, in Chandramma Dayananda Sagar Hospital, Bengaluru, Astra Super Speciality Hospital, Bengaluru and Jayanagar Orthopaedic Centre, Bengaluru. She has also underwent surgery. Further as per P.W.5, the said injuries have caused physical disability to the petitioner. In such circumstances, certainly the petitioner would have suffered pain and sufferings. Therefore, taking into considering the injuries sustained and disability to the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that, an compensation amount of Rs.40,000/- is to be awarded to the petitioner towards pain and sufferings.
iv) Attendant charges: As per Ex.P.4 discharge summaries, the petitioner has taken treatment as inpatient 29 MVC No.95/2023 for 09 days on 24-12-2022 and from 26-12-2022 to 27-12- 2022, 26-04-2023 to 28-04-2023 and 01-05-2023 to 03-05- 2023, in Chandramma Dayananda Sagar Hospital, Bengaluru, Astra Super Speciality Hospital, Bengaluru and Jayanagar Orthopaedic Centre, Bengaluru. She might have spent considerable amount towards attendant charges during that period. Therefore, compensation of Rs.1000 x 9 = Rs.9,000/- is awarded towards the attendant charges.
v) Food and nourishment: As per Ex.P.4 discharge summaries, the petitioner has taken treatment as inpatient for 09 days on 24-12-2022 and from 26-12-2022 to 27-12-2022, 26-04-2023 to 28-04-2023 and 01-05-2023 to 03- 05-2023, in Chandramma Dayananda Sagar Hospital, Bengaluru, Astra Super Speciality Hospital, Bengaluru and Jayanagar Orthopaedic Centre, Bengaluru. Therefore, compensation of Rs.800 x 9 = Rs.7,200/- is awarded towards food and nourishment charges.
30 MVC No.95/2023
vi) Conveyance expenses: The petitioner is the resident of 4th Cross, Nirvaneshwara Nagar, Behind Girish Kalyana Mantap, Kanakapura, Ramanagar District, the accident has taken place in front of Chowdeshwari Bakery, T.K. Halli Bus Stop, Kanakapura-Malavalli Road, Mandya District and she has taken treatment at Chandramma Dayananda Sagar Hospital, Bengaluru, Astra Super Speciality Hospital, Bengaluru and Jayanagar Orthopaedic Centre, Bengaluru. In order to prove the same, she has produced 19 travels bills, as per Ex.P.10. But, it is pertinent to note that, none of the said bills contain the GST number of Sri Ranga Tours and Travels said to have issued the said traveling bills. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that, taking into consideration the distance in between all the above places, awarding compensation of Rs.10,000/- under the head of conveyance expenses would be just and reasonable.
31 MVC No.95/2023
vii) Loss of income during treatment period: The petitioner has taken treatment for 9 days as inpatient at Chandramma Dayananda Sagar Hospital, Bengaluru, Astra Super Speciality Hospital, Bengaluru and Jayanagar Orthopaedic Centre, Bengaluru, for the grievous injuries sustained in the accident. She might have taken rest for about 2 months and lost her income for the said period. Therefore, Rs.15,500 x 2 = Rs.31,000/- is awarded towards loss of income during treatment period.
viii) Loss of amenities: It is evident from the documents placed on record that, as on the date of accident the age of the petitioner was 23 years and unfortunately she has suffered Displaced Comminuted Fracture Distal Ulna Right and Complete ACL Tear Left Knee. The evidence on record shows that, she has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 10% to the whole body. Therefore, awarding compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities would be just and reasonable.
32 MVC No.95/2023
ix) Future medical expenses: The P.W.5 has clearly deposed in his evidence that, the petitioner needs to undergo one more surgery for removal of implants and it costs about Rs.50,000/-. The cost of surgery for removal of implants quoted by P.W.5 seems exaggerated. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that, awarding compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards future medical expenses would be just and reasonable.
21. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for compensation under different heads as follows :
1. Loss of future income Rs. 3,34,800-00
2. Medical expenses Nil
3. Pain and sufferings 40,000-00
4. Attendant charges 9,000-00
5. Food and nourishment 7,200-00
6. Conveyance expenses 10,000-00
7. Loss of income during 31,000-00 treatment period
8. Loss of amenities 20,000-00
9. Future medical expenses 20,000-00 Total Rs. 4,72,000-00 33 MVC No.95/2023 In all, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.4,72,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum (excluding interest on future medical expenses of Rs.20,000/-) from the date of petition till its realization.
22. Admittedly, as on the date of accident the respondent No.2 is the owner and respondent No.1 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Further, the evidence placed on record by the petitioner clearly establishes that, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending car bearing Reg. No.KA-51-MC-2212 the said accident has taken place. In such circumstances, the respondent No.2 being the owner of said vehicle is vicariously liable to compensate for the damages caused by the said vehicle. The respondent No.1 being the insurer of the vehicle has to indemnify the respondent No.2. Therefore, the respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. However, the primary liability is on the respondent No.1 to pay the compensation to the petitioner. 34 MVC No.95/2023 Therefore, for the above stated reasons, holding that, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.4,72,000/- from the respondent No.1, I answer Issue No.2 in Partly Affirmative.
23. Issue No.3: In view of the above findings, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER The petition is partly allowed with costs.
The petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs.4,72,000/- (Rupees four lakhs seventy two thousand only) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., (excluding interest on future medical expenses of Rs.20,000/-) from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the above compensation amount. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is fastened on 35 MVC No.95/2023 respondent No.1 - Insurance Company and it is directed to pay the compensation amount within two months from the date of this order.
Out of the compensation amount awarded to petitioner, 30% of the compensation amount with proportionate interest shall be deposited in her name as fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for the period of three years with liberty to draw the accrued interest periodically and the remaining 70% amount with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the petitioner through e- payment on proper identification and verification.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/-. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, directly on computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced in the open court this the 04th day of November, 2024) (Mohammed Yunus Athani) Member, MACT, Bengaluru.36 MVC No.95/2023
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of petitioner:
P.W.1: Smt. Chaithanya K. N. P.W.2: Sri K. M. Siddesh P.W.3: Sri Praveena C. P.W.4: Sri B. Ramesh P.W.5: Dr. S. A. Somashekara
Documents marked on behalf of petitioner:
Ex.P.1: Copy of F.I.R.
Ex.P.2: Copy of Complaint
Ex.P.3: Copy of Spot Mahazer
Ex.P.4: Copy of M.V.A. Report
Ex.P.5: Copy of Wound Certificate
Ex.P.6: Copy of Charge-sheet
Ex.P.7: Copy of Outpatient Records
Ex.P.8: Discharge Summary (4 in nos.)
Ex.P.9: Medical Bills (38 in nos.) of Rs.1,89,434/-
Ex.P.10: Travels Bills (19 in nos.) of Rs.51,000/-
Ex.P.11: Medical Prescriptions (11 in nos.)
Ex.P.12: CT and MRI Scan reports (13 in nos.)
Ex.P.13: OPD Cards (5 in nos.)
Ex.P.14: Notarized copy of Aadhar Card
37 MVC No.95/2023
Ex.P.15: Work Assignment Letter
Ex.P.16: Bank Statement
Ex.P.17: Photographs (3 in nos.) along with 1 CD
Ex.P.18: X-ray (3 in nos.)
Ex.P.19: Authorization Letter
Ex.P.20: MLC Extract
Ex.P.21: Case Sheet
Ex.P.22: X-rays (7 in nos.)
Ex.P.23: C.T. Scan (5 in nos.)
Ex.P.24: Authorization Letter
Ex.P.25: Case Sheet
Ex.P.26: X-ray
Ex.P.27: MLC Extract
Ex.P.28 & Case Sheet (2 in nos.)
Ex.P.29:
Ex.P.30: Authorization Letter
Ex.P.31: Clinical Note
Ex.P.32: X-ray
Witnesses examined on behalf of respondents:
-Nil-
Documents marked on behalf of the respondents:
-Nil-
(Mohammed Yunus Athani) Member, MACT, Bengaluru.