Bangalore District Court
Harshith K.N vs Mananging Director on 3 October, 2016
BEFORE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE CITY.
SCCH-14
PRESENT: BASAVARAJ CHENGTI., B.Com.,LL.B.,(spl)
Member, MACT,
XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes,
BANGALORE.
MVC No.30/2011
Dated this the 3rd day of October 2016
Petitioner/s : HARSHITH K.N.,
S/o. B.Nagaraj,
aged about 20 years,
residing at Kalmantidoddi village,
Keragod Post & Hobli,
Mandya taluk & district
(By pleader Sri CCH)
V/s
Respondent/s MANANGING DIRECTOR
K.S.R.T.C.,
Bangalore Central Office,
K.H.Road,
Shanthinagar,
Bangalore 560 027
(By pleader Sri MD)
SCCH-14 2 MVC NO.30/2011
JUDGMENT
This petition is filed by the petitioner U/s 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident.
2. Brief averments of the petition are as under:
The petitioner was aged 20 years, was a milk vendor, news paper supplier and was also a student and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. On 19.11.2010 at about 9.30 a.m., the petitioner was walking on the extreme left side on Chikkamandya road. When he reached near Eshwara Temple cross road, Mandya and at that time, KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-06-F-396 driven by its driver at high speed, in rash and negligent manner, endangering to human life, without observing any of the traffic rules and regulations came and dashed against the petitioner. Due to impact, the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries to right leg, abdomen and all over the body. Immediately, the petitioner was taken to Govt., Hospital, Mandya wherein first aid treatment was given and then, he was shifted to Apollo Hospital, Mysore, wherein he was admitted as an inpatient from 19.11.2010 to 29.11.2010. The petitioner underwent surgery for symphysis reduction with SS wire fixation and external fixation for shaft femur under GA on 19.11.2010, wound exploration + Ligation of Sapheno-femoral junction and wound debridement and suturing and laparotomy, bladder neck repair was done Under GA on 19.11.2010. The petitioner sustained Grade II lateral compression pelvic fracture, SCCH-14 3 MVC NO.30/2011 right shaft of femur fracture with complete urethral rupture with sephenofemoral vein rupture right side. He was discharged with an advice to take follow up treatment and bed rest. Thereafter, the petitioner was admitted in Babu Nursing Home at Pandavapura for further treatment and then, he was shifted to Manipal Hospital, Bangalore wherein he was admitted as an inpatient from
03.08.2011 to 08.08.2011. During the course of treatment, X-ray and MCU scan were taken which confirmed stricture Urethra-failed multiple Urethro (lasties and Internal Urethrotomies and Pelvic fracture Urethral Distraction Defect. After anesthetic clearance under GA on 04.08.2011 re-do Urethroplasty was done by the transpubic approach. The urethra was mobilized up to and detached at the membranous urethra all scar tissue was excised, Crural sepration was done (including the K-wire from the previous operations_ Suprablic incision and a vertical cystotomy was done in order to localize the proximal urethral end which was mobilized up to the healthy supple mucosa end to end urethroplasty over 16 Fr silicon catheter and omentum was wrapped around the anastomosis and suction drain was placed in the retropubic space. The petitioner took treatment as an inpatient for multiple injuries and after one month again he was re-admitted in the same hospital. The petitioner spent more than Rs.4,00,000/- towards medical treatment, operation charges, nourishing food, conveyance charges and attendants charges. Prior to the accident, the petitioner was hale and healthy and he was a very brilliant student and use to participate in curricular activities. Due to accidental injuries, he cannot concentrate on his studies resulting in getting SCCH-14 4 MVC NO.30/2011 poor marks and in future he cannot participate in curricular activities and sports. He was young, energetic and very dynamic personality before the accident and he lost earnings. The petitioner could not walk, stand, sit and squat on the floor, cannot lift or carry any weight and he cannot use the Indian toilets. He is undergoing deep mental shock, pain and sufferings since the injuries are permanent in nature. The injuries are Mal united and he is till today having urinal leakage which is not recoverable. He is suffering from stress urinary incontinence due to wide opening of bladder neck. No control over the passing urine and he is having Erectile dysfunction which is due to his injury sustained to Cavernous Nerves at the time of accident. Mandya Traffic police have registered Cr.No.171/2010 against the driver of KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-06-F-396 for the offences punishable U/s 279, 337 and 338 of IPC. The respondent is the owner of the said bus and he is liable to pay compensation. Hence, the petitioner has filed this petition for compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- with Court cost and interest.
3. In pursuance of the notice, the respondent has appeared before the Court through his counsel and filed objection statement denying the averments of the petition as false and contended that there was no negligence on the part of his driver, that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is baseless, speculative, imaginary and exorbitant besides being not due by him, that the said KSRTC bus reached at Hunasemarada stop near Mandya, some of the passengers got down from the bus and new SCCH-14 5 MVC NO.30/2011 passengers entered the said bus and proceeded further very slowly, during that time, the petitioner Harshith aged about 14 years, after got down from another bus behind to this bus with puzzled and confused and in a rash manner while entering the said bus from the left side front door, slipped and fell down from the footboard, his right leg touched to front left side wheel of the bus. Immediately the driver of the said bus got down from the bus and shifted the injured to the Govt., Hospital, Mandya, that the accident has occurred due to negligence on the part of the petitioner himself, that the jurisdictional police authority refused to accept the complaint of the driver of the said bus, but accepted the complaint of the petitioner side, that he is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. Hence, he has sought for dismissal of the petition.
4. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues were framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he has sustained grievous injuries as mentioned in column No.11, in a road traffic accident on 19-11-2010 at about 9.30 a.m., on Mandya City, near Eshwara temple cross, Chikk-
Mandya road, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the KSRTC Bus bearing No.KA.06.F.396?
2. Whether petitioner is entitled for any compensation? If so to what extent?
3. What Order or Award?
SCCH-14 6 MVC NO.30/20115. During the evidence, the petitioner has examined his natural guardian and father as PW.1 and examined three witnesses as PW.2 to 4. He has got marked documents as Ex.P1 to P30 and closed his side. The respondent has examined his driver as RW.1 and got marked endorsement of police with copy of complaint as Ex.R.1.
6. After hearing the arguments, this court vide Judgment dated:05.03.2012, has allowed the petition in part awarding compensation of Rs.7,88,000/- with interest @ 6% pa, from the date of the claim petition till the date of payment. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Award, the petitioner has filed MFA no.10663/2012 before Hon'ble High Court. After hearing both the sides, Hon'ble Court was pleased to allow the appeal vide Judgment dated:29.01.2016 and pleased to set-aside the Judgment and award passed by this court and remitted the matter back to this court for fresh disposal after providing opportunity to both the parties for adducing further evidence. Accordingly, the matter is restored to its original number. After receipt of records, notices were issued to both the parties who have appeared before the court through their respective counsel and matter was posted for further evidence of parties. The petitioner examined himself as PW.6 and a doctor as PW.5. He has got marked documents as Ex.P31 to 45.
7. Heard the arguments. The counsel for the petitioner has filed his written argument and relied upon following rulings:
SCCH-14 7 MVC NO.30/20111. 2011 ACJ 489: (New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Vs., Shweta Dilip Mehta & Ors.,
2. 1995 ACJ 366: (R.D Hattangadi Vs., Pest Control (India) Pvt.,Ltd., & Ors., The respondent has relied upon ruling reported in MFA No.8473/2015 :(The Managing Director Vs., Hari Prasad Deddy & Anr.,). I have gone through written argument, rulings and perused the records.
8. My findings on the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1: In Affirmative. Issue No.2 : In Affirmative, For Rs.11,75,000/-. Issue No.3 : As per final order :
for the following:
REASONS
9. ISSUE NO.1: There is no dispute that the petitioner was a minor at the time of accident. The respondent is the RC owner of KSRTC bus bearing no.KA-06-F-396. It is an admitted fact that Mandya traffic police have registered a case pertaining to the accident in Cr.No.171/10, investigated the matter and filed charge sheet against the driver of KSRTC bus bearing no.KA-06-F- 396 for the offences punishable U/s 279 and 338 of IPC. The respondent has impliedly admitted the occurrence of accident involving KSRTC bus bearing no.KA-06-F-396 by giving a specific suggestion that the petitioner tried to get down from the bus hurriedly, fell down and sustained injuries.
SCCH-14 8 MVC NO.30/201110. The petitioner has asserted that he sustained grievous injuries in the accident which has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of KSRTC bus bearing no.KA-06-F-
396. PW-1:Nagarah, PW-2: Sindushree and PW-6:Harashith have deposed about the said facts. Their evidence is as per the averments of the petition as to manner of accident. However, PW-1 is not an eye witness to the accident and hence, his evidence as to manner of accident and as to negligence of the driver of the bus is inadmissible, but his evidence as to nature of injuries caused to the petitioner in the accident is believable. PW-6 is the victim and PW-2 is an eye witness. Except denials, nothing is elicited from them in cross examination. Copies of police records at Ex.P-1 to 4, 6 to 9 corroborate the evidence of PW-2 and 6 as to manner of accident and negligence of driver of the bus. There was no delay in lodging complaint. The police investigation is ended in filing of charge sheet against the driver of the bus for causing grievous injuries to the petitioner by driving the bus in rash and negligent manner. Nothing is on record to believe that the charge sheet filed by the police is defective or collusive. Copies of statements of injured and witnesses at Ex.P-7 to 9 are consistent with the evidence of PW-6. Thus, evidence of PW-1, 2 and 6 and contents of Ex.P-1 to 4, 6 to 9 substantiate the averments of the petition.
11. The respondent has contended that the accident has occurred due to negligence of the petitioner, that while searching his sister, the petitioner entered the bus and getting down hurriedly and at that time, he got slipped, fell down and sustained SCCH-14 9 MVC NO.30/2011 grievous injuries. RW-1:Shantha Gowda Biradar is the driver of KSRTC bus bearing no.KA-06-F-396 and he has deposed as per the defence of the respondent. Copy of endorsement dt.10.12.2010 with copy of complaint are at Ex.R-1 which support the version of RW-1, but there was a delay of a day in lodging complaint. The police have registered Cr.No.171/10 on the basis of PW-2 on 19.11.2010 i.e., on the date of accident itself. Complaint of RW-1 is after thought. There was no reason for RW-1 to keep quite for a day to file complaint even though he was arrested by the police on 19.11.2010. There is no independent evidence to corroborate the evidence of RW-1. Police investigation goes against the evidence of RW-1 and contents of Ex.R-1. Therefore, I disbelieve the evidence of RW-1.
12. PW-3:Dr.Raghavendra, PW-4:Dr.Balakrishna Gowda and PW-5:Dr.Deepak have deposed that the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries and suffered permanent disability. Wound certificate at Ex.P-5, discharge summaries at 12 to 14, 24, 35 and 37, x-rays and reports at Ex.P-15, 21, 22, 29, 33, 34, 39, 43 and 45, test reports at Ex.P-28, case sheets at Ex.P-31, 32, 36 and 42 and doctors notes at Ex.P-44 corroborate the evidence of PW-1 to 6 and reveal that the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries in the nature of permanent disablement and he is suffering from permanent disability. PW-3 has stated about urinary incontinence and sexual disfunction. PW-4 has stated that the petitioner is suffering from permanent disability of 25.2% to whole body from right leg. PW-5 has stated that the petitioner is SCCH-14 10 MVC NO.30/2011 suffering from permanent disability of 100% due to urinary incontinence. The respondent has disputed the correctness of evidence of PW-3 to 5 as to extent of disability suffered by the petitioner. Same can be dealt later while discussing issue no.2. However, evidence of PW-3 to 5 discloses that the petitioner is suffering from some sort of disability due to accidental injuries. History of injuries of the petitioner is shown as RTA in medical records. There was no delay in admitting the petitioner to hospital. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the contents of medical records as to injuries of the petitioner. There is no convincing evidence as to sole or contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner. I am of the opinion that the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries in an accident arising due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of KSRTC bus bearing no.KA-06-F-396. Hence, I hold that the petitioner has succeeded to prove this issue. The evidence of RW-1 and contents of Ex.R-1 are not sufficient to prove the negligence of the petitioner. Consequently, I answer the issue in affirmative.
13. ISSUE NO.2: The petitioner has claimed compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- from the respondent for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. The respondent is the owner of KSRTC bus bearing no.KA-06-F-396 and he has denied the case of the petitioner as false and contended that the petitioner sustained simple injuries in the accident, that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive and exorbitant. RW-1 was the driver of said bus. He has stated that the petitioner has sustained simple SCCH-14 11 MVC NO.30/2011 injuries in the accident. There is no documentary evidence to support his evidence. On the contrary, PW-6 has stated about the injuries caused to him in the accident, treatment taken by him, amount spent by him, effect of such injuries, his future medical requirements. PW-1 to 5 have stated that the injuries caused to the petitioner were grievous in nature and have resulted in permanent disability. PW-4 and 5 have stated about the disability caused to the petitioner due to accidental injuries. Wound certificate, discharge summaries, test report and case sheets at Ex.P-5, 12 to 15, 21, 22, 24, 28, 29, 31 to 37, 39, 42 to 44 corroborate the evidence of PW-1 to 6 as to injuries and effect of such injuries. Photographs reveal the effect of injuries on the petitioner. X-rays confirm the causing of fractures to the petitioner. These oral and documentary evidence collectively disclose that the petitioner has sustained following injuries in the accident:
1. Lateral compression pelvic fracture
2. Fracture of shaft of right femur
3. Complete urethral rupture
4. Saphenofemoral vein rupture right side The petitioner has taken treatment in Mandya Govt.
hospital, in Babu nursing home, Pandavapura, in BGS global hospital, Mysore and Manipal hospital, Bangalore. There is no document as to taking treatment in first two hospitals. On perusal of discharge summaries of other two hospitals, it reveals that the petitioner was an inpatient for about 5 weeks and underwent following procedures:
SCCH-14 12 MVC NO.30/2011From 19.11.2010 to 29.11.2010 in BGS Global hospital:
Symphysis reduction with S.S wire fixation and external fixation for Shaft femur was done under GA Wound exploration + ligation of sapheno - femoral junction, wound debridement and suturing was done Surgeon (1) Laparotomy (2) Bladder neck repair Closed reduction & Tens nailing done.
From 25.12.2010 to 3.1.2011 in BGS Global hospital:
1. DVIU
2. Debridement of thigh wound was done 27.12.2010 From 11.5.2011 to 16.5.2011 in BGS Global hospital:
Urthroplasty was done 13.05.2011 From 3.8.2011 to 8.8.2011 in Manipal hospital:
"After anaesthetic clearance under GA on 04.08.2011, re-do urethroplasty was done by the transpubic approach. The urethra was mobilized upto and detached at the membranous urethra. All the scar tissue was excised, crural separation was done, total pubectomy was done (including the K-wire from the previous operation). Suprapubic incision was done and a vertical cystomy was done in order to localize the proximal urethral end which was mobilized up to the healthy/supple mucosa. End to end SCCH-14 13 MVC NO.30/2011 urethroplasty was done over a 16 Fr silicon catheter and omentum was wrapped around the anastomosis and suction drain was placed in the retropubic space".
14. PW-3 and 5 have stated about present condition of the petitioner as under:
PW.3:
The patient permanently suffers with urinary incontinence and sexual disfunction (loss of maleness) PW.5:
(a) Balder is distended with diluted Ionic contrast (Angiograffin) following Foleys insertion. Previod is 390 ml.
(b) Blader neck and posterior urethra are mildly prominent, with a small narrowing of bulmomembranous junction,
(c) Anterior urethra ins normal in caliber and distenstion
(d) Post void residus is approximately 10 ml (insignificant)
(e) Old healed fracture of pelvic bones.
PW-4 has stated as under:
(a) Patient limping while walking, range of movement 0 to 60 degree on right movement,
(b) Squatting and crossing was not possible,
(c) Puckered wound on right side of leg, SCCH-14 14 MVC NO.30/2011
(d) X-ray of Pelvis shows Pubic impasses diastasy.
(e) Femur fracture is united well.
PW-4 has assessed the disability of the petitioner @25.2% to whole body from right leg, but fracture of right femur is well united. There is nothing on record to believe that the petitioner was diabetic, that he is not limping and he is able to squat and sit cross legged without difficulty. But, in view of reunion of fracture, assessment of disability is on higher side. Looking to the observations of the doctors and radiological report, I am of the opinion that if the extent of disability is assessed @15% to whole body from injury to right leg and pelvis, it will meet the ends of justice.
15. PW-5 has assessed the disability of the petitioner @100% due to bladder injury i.e., urinal leakage. He is suffering from erectile disfunction. He may not become father of a child. His marriage prospects are seriously affected. Urinal leakage will affect the working capacity of the petitioner. Therefore, the disability due to urinal leakage is physical as well as functional resulting in loss of working capacity and in loss of amenities. But, he can perform his work by using pads. His physical and functional disability due to urinal leakage can be assessed @15% to whole body. Combined value can be ascertained by applying telescopic formula. On such application, total disability of the petitioner comes to 27.5% to whole body which can be rounded to 28%.
SCCH-14 15 MVC NO.30/201116. The petitioner was aged 15 years and was in 9th standard at the time of accident. Progress card of 7th standard is at Ex.P-23 which reveals that the petitioner was bright in studies and secured A+ in all subjects. He studied 7th standard during academic year 2008-09. The petition was filed in 2011 by showing that the petitioner was in 9th standard. It means, there is no loss of academic year of the petitioner due to accident. However, his studies would have definitely affected by accidental injuries especially urinal leakage. His last surgery was in May 2011. He might have taken rest for about 15 days after last discharge. It means, he was on follow up treatment and rest till end of May 2011. His laid up period comes to 6 to 6½ months. The parents of the petitioner might have spent amount for nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges. They would have lost income for a month each during said period in providing treatment to the petitioner. There is no evidence as to quantum of amount spent by the petitioner's parents during laid up period and their loss of income, but the petitioner have got marked medical bills amounting to Rs.4,00,790/-, Rs.54,171/-, Rs.1,33,194/- and Rs.11,995/- which are marked as Ex.P-18, 25, 38 and 41. The bills are supported by prescriptions at Ex.P-19 and 27. The bills are consistent with case sheets at Ex.P-31, 32, 36 and 42. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the medical bills, but the petitioner has not considered discounts in bills at Sl.No.1, 18, 48, 54 in Ex.P-18. Total discount given on those bills is Rs.7,050/-. On deduction of said amount, net amount of medical bills at Ex.P-18 comes to Rs.3,93,740/-. The petitioner has added amount of tax SCCH-14 16 MVC NO.30/2011 invoices in bills at Ex.P-25 amount of which is included in final bill at Sl.No.10. Secondly, the final bill was Rs.46,794/-, but policy discount given is Rs.29,021/-. Amount paid by the petitioner was Rs.17,773/-. The amount of bills at Sl.No.1 and 2 was paid by the petitioner in respect of bills at Ex.P-25. Thus, total amount of bills at Ex.P-25 comes to Rs.19,693/-. The bills at Sl.No.5, 6, 12 and 15 in Ex.P-38 amounting to Rs.3,752/- are tax invoices whose amount is added in final bill. The amount of bill i.e., Rs.46,794/- at Sl.No.2 in Ex.P-38 is already included in Ex.P-25. The bills at Sl.No.3 and 4 of Ex.P-38 amounting to Rs.8,000/- are advance receipts. Total of these inadmissible bills comes to Rs.58,546/-. On deduction of said amount, net amount of bills at Ex.P-38 comes to Rs.74,648/-. Thus, total amount of admissible medical bills comes to Rs.5,00,076/-.
17. The petitioner has asserted that he was doing milk vending and was supplying news paper and was earning Rs.15,000/- p.m., as on the date of accident. PW-1 and 6 have deposed in that regard. There is no corroboration to their oral evidence. The police records reveal that the petitioner was a student. He was in 8th standard. We can not expect that a boy of 14-15 years was doing milk vending business and was supplying news paper. Uncorroborated evidence of PW-1 and 6 is unacceptable. Hence, I disbelieve that the petitioner was doing any work and was earning Rs.15,000/- p.m., Then, there can not be any loss of income during laid up period. However, the petitioner is suffering from permanent disability of 28% to whole body. Hon'ble SCCH-14 17 MVC NO.30/2011 Supreme Court has held ILR-2013 KAR-4891 (Master Mallikarjun v/s Divisional Manager, The National Insurance Co., Ltd and another)
(b) Though it is difficult to have an accurate assessment of compensation in the case of children suffering disability on account of a motor vehicle accident, having regard to the relevant factors, precedents and the approach of various High Courts, that the appropriate compensation on all other heads in addition to the actual expenditure for treatment attendant, etc., should be, if the disability is above 10% and up 30% to the would body, Rs.3 lakhs; upto 60% Rs.4 lakhs; upto 90%, Rs.5 lakhs and above 90%, it should be 6 lakhs,. Fore permanent disability upto 10%, it should be Rs. 1 lakh, unless there are exceptional circumstances to take different yardstick. In the instant case, the disability is to the tune of 18%.
Appellant had a longer period of hospitalization for about two months causing also inconvenience and loss of earning to the parents.
The above ruling is applicable to this case. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and sufferings, Rs.5,00,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.3,00,000/- towards disability, Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities.
18. The petitioner needs to undergo surgery for erectile disfunction. He may not become father of a child. He has to use SCCH-14 18 MVC NO.30/2011 pads through out life incurring recurring expenses for urinal leakage. However, there is no corroboration to the evidence of PW-5 as to cost of surgery and equipment. His marriage prospects are seriously affected. Hence, I award a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards future medical expenses, Rs.25,000/- towards recurring maintenance expenses, Rs.25,000/- towards loss of marriage prospects, Rs.25,000/- towards loss of life expectancy. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for just and reasonable compensation as under:
1. Pain and sufferings Rs.1,00,000/- 2 Medical expenses Rs.5,00,000/- 3 Disability Rs.3,00,000/- 4 Loss of amenities Rs.1,00,000/- 5 Future medical expenses Rs.1,00,000/- 6 Recurring maintenance Rs. 25,000/-
expenses 7 Loss of marriage prospects Rs. 25,000/- 8 Loss of life expectancy Rs. 25,000/-
Total Rs.11,75,000/-
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3238/2015 (arising out of SLP (C) 1865/2014 (Chanderi Devi and Anr., Vs. Jaspalsingh & Ors.,) and Hon'ble High Court in MFA No.2326/2016 (Annapurna & Ors., G.Ashawathraya & Anr.,) have held that rate of interest shall be @9% p.a., The ruling relied upon by the respondent is earlier to above rulings. Hence, I hold that the petitioner is entitled for interest @9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment.
SCCH-14 19 MVC NO.30/201119. The respondent is the owner of KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-06-F-0396. The accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of said bus. The respondent is vicariously liable to pay compensation and interest to the petitioner as calculated. Hence, I answer the issue as above.
20. ISSUE NO.3: In view of above discussion and findings, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.11,75,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondent is liable to pay to the petitioner a compensation of Rs.11,75,000/- with interest. He is directed to deposit the amount before court within one month from the date of order.
After deposit, Rs.2,00,000/- shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner in any nationalized, scheduled or co-operative bank for SCCH-14 20 MVC NO.30/2011 a period of 3 years. Balance amount with interest shall be released in favour of the petitioner through account payee cheque with proper identification.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer and then corrected by me and pronounced in the open court, on this the 3rd day of October 2016.) (Basavaraj Chengti) XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & MACT, Bangalore.SCCH-14 21 MVC NO.30/2011
ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS:
P.W.1 Shri Nagaraj, P.W.2 Kum.Sindushree, P.W.3 Dr.Ragavendra, P.W.4 Dr.T.N.Balakrishna Gowda P.W.5 Dr.Deepak P.W.6 K.N.Harshith Respondent' s RW.1 Shantha Gowda Biradar;
Ex.P1-True copy of FIR with Complaint, Ex.P2-True copy of Spot Mahazar, Ex.P3-True Copy of Sketch, Ex.P4-True Copy of IMV report, Ex.P5-True copy of wound certificate, Ex.P6-True Copy of chargesheet, Ex.P7-9-Copy of statement recorded by the Police, Ex.P10-Three digital photos, Ex.P11-C.D., Ex.P12-First discharge summary, Ex.P13-Second discharge summary, Ex.P14-Third discharge summary, Ex.P15-Lab reports (22 Sheets), Ex.P16-Four attendant pass and four reliever pass, Ex.P17-Notarised copy of the ration card, Ex.P18-60 medical bills, Ex.P19-10 Medical Prescriptions Ex.P20-Advance amount pays receipt (10 in nos.), Ex.P21-7 X-ray films, Ex.P22-CT scan report Ex.P23-Progress card Ex.P24-Discharge summary (7) Sheet, Ex.P25-Additional medical bills (10 in nos.), Ex.P26-Advance amount paid Receipt (4 in nos.), SCCH-14 22 MVC NO.30/2011 Ex.P27-Medical Prescriptions (1) in nos.) Ex.P28-ECG Report Ex.P29-X-ray film (2 in nos), Ex.P30-CD, Ex.P31-Case sheet BGS Apollo Hospital Ex.P32- Case sheet Ex.P33 - X-ray Ex.P34-X-ray Ex.P35-Discharge summary Ex.P36 -IP record Ex.P37-Discharge summary Ex.P38- Medical bills (15 in nos amounting to Rs.1,33,194/-) Ex.P39- X-ray report Ex.P40- Genealogy Ex.P41- Medical bills (5 in nos. amounting to Rs.11,975/-) Ex.P42- OP records Ex.P43 -X-ray report Ex.P44- Doctor notes Ex.P45- X-ray Respondent's Ex.R.1: Original endorsement letter of Sub Inspector of Traffic Police, Mandya with complaint XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & MACT, Bangalore.SCCH-14 23 MVC NO.30/2011
Dt.03.10.2016 P-CCH R-MD For Judgment Order pronounced in open court vide separate judgment.
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioner
U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.SCCH-14 24 MVC NO.30/2011
The petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.11,75,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondent is liable to pay to the petitioner a compensation of Rs.11,75,000/- with interest. He is directed to deposit the amount before court within one month from the date of order.
After deposit, Rs.2,00,000/- shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner in any nationalized, scheduled or co-operative bank for a period of 3 years. Balance amount with interest shall be released in favour of the petitioner through account payee cheque with proper identification.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bangalore.SCCH-14 25 MVC NO.30/2011
AWARD SCCH NO.14 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA : BANGALORE CITY MVC No.30/2011 Petitioner/s : HARSHITH K.N., S/o. B.Nagaraj, aged about 20 years, residing at Kalmantidoddi village, Keragod Post & Hobli, Mandya taluk & district (By pleader Sri CCH) V/s Respondent/s MANANGING DIRECTOR K.S.R.T.C., Bangalore Central Office, K.H.Road, Shanthinagar, Bangalore 560 027 (By pleader Sri MD) WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the petitioner/s above named U/Sec.166 of the M.V.C. Act, praying for the compensation of Rs.
(Rupees ) for
the injuries sustained by the petitioner/Death of in a
motor Accident by vehicle No.
SCCH-14 26 MVC NO.30/2011
WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before
Sri/Smt.Basavaraj Chengti, XVI Addl.Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. Advocate for respondent.
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioner
U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.11,75,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondent is liable to pay to the petitioner a compensation of Rs.11,75,000/- with interest. He is directed to deposit the amount before court within one month from the date of order.
After deposit, Rs.2,00,000/- shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner in any nationalized, scheduled or co-operative bank for a period of 3 years. Balance amount with interest shall be released in favour of the petitioner SCCH-14 27 MVC NO.30/2011 through account payee cheque with proper identification.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day of 2016.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: Bangalore.SCCH-14 28 MVC NO.30/2011
By the __________________________________ Petitioner/s Respondent No.1 No.2 _________________________________ Court fee paid on petition 10-00 Court fee paid on Powers 01-00 Court fee paid on I.A. Process Pleaders Fee _____________________________ Total Rs. -----------------------------------
Decree Drafted Scrutinised by
MEMBER, M.A.C.T.
METROPOLITAN: BANGALORE.
Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR