Bangalore District Court
Mruthunjaya vs ) Universal Sampo General on 16 June, 2015
BEFORE THE ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AND CHIEF
JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AT BANGALORE
(SCCH-1)
DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF JUNE'2015
PRESENT: SRI H.P.SANDESH, B.A.L., LL.B,
MEMBER, PRL. M.A.C.T.,
MVC No.3558/2014
Petitioner: MRUTHUNJAYA,
S/o.Guru Basappa,
Aged 24 years,
R/at C/o.M.Ravi,
S/o.Late M.R.Sampangi Naidu,
No.60, 3rd Main, 2nd Cross,
Srinivasanagar,
Bangalore 560 050.
(Pleader by Smt.Asha A., Advocate)
V/s.
Respondents: 1) UNIVERSAL SAMPO GENERAL
INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
No.217/a, 3rd Floor, 3rd Main,
Outer Ring Road,
Kasturinagar,
Bangalore 43.
(Insurer of Vehicle No.KA.51/A.0616)
Policy No.2315/50571873/04/000
Valid from 23.02.2014 to 22.02.2015.
2) M/S. KAVERI WATER SUPPLY,
# 468, R.K.Township,
Yarandahalli,
Hennagara Post,
Anekal, Bangalore 562 106.
(Respondent No.1 - Sri H.N.Keshava Prashanth,
Advcate
Respondent No.2 - Sri Krishna R., Advocate)
2 MVC No.3558/2014
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.30 lakhs from the respondents No.1 and 2 with regard to the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident that occurred on 03.06.2014 at about 02.30 pm., near Sunsera Company, Bommasandra-Jigani Road, Bengaluru.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-
It is the case of the petitioner that on 03.06.2014, at about 02.30 pm., when the petitioner was riding motorcycle bearing registration No.KA.51/EE.9584 slowly and cautiously near Sunsera Company on Bommasandra Jigani Link Road, at that time, a tanker lorry bearing registration No.KA.51/A.616 came from back side in rash and negligent manner and dashed against his motorcycle, as a result, he fell down and sustained injuries all over his body and immediately, he was shifted to Sparsh Hospital, Bengaluru wherein he took treatment as inpatient and he was subjected to surgery.
3. It is also the case of the petitioner that he took best available treatment in various hospitals and inspite of that, he is left with permanent disability and he has spent more than Rs.8 lakhs towards hospitalization. It is his further case that he was aged 24 years and working as Tower Maintenance Technician with Dynamic Power Supplies and earning a monthly income of Rs.10,500/-. Due to the accidental injuries and permanent disability, he suffered income not only during the period of treatment, but also the future earning capacity.
4. It is the further case of the petitioner that the jurisdictional Police have registered a case against the driver of the tanker lorry for 3 MVC No.3558/2014 offence under Section 279 and 338 of the IPC. The first respondent is the insurer and the second respondent is the owner of the tanker lorry and both the respondents are liable to pay compensation of Rs.30 lakhs to the petitioner as claimed in the petition. Hence the petition.
5. In pursuance of this petition, this Tribunal issued notice of the petition to both the respondents, pursuant to which, both the respondents appeared through their respective counsel and filed statement of objections.
6. The respondent No.1 has filed statement of objections by contending that the claim petition is not maintainable. The respondent No.1 states that it has issued a Policy of Insurance in respect of the Water Tanker No.KA.51/A.0616 and the original of the said policy is with the respondent No.2. It is further contended that the liability is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. The respondent No.1 has also taken statutory defence in the statement of objections, contending that the owner of the tanker lorry knowingly entrusted the vehicle to a person who has no valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question, in violation of the policy conditions. It is further contended that the vehicle was being used without valid Fitness Certificate and Permit and hence, the respondent No.1 is absolved from payment compensation to the petitioner.
7. The respondent No.1 has taken general defence under Sections 136(c), 147, 149 and 158(6) of the MV Act.
8. Regarding the averment of the petition, the respondent No.1 has contended that the averments made out in para No.22 of the claim 4 MVC No.3558/2014 petition to the effect that the tanker lorry was being driven in a rash and negligent manner has been denied as false and the respondent No.1 has put the petitioner to strict proof of the same. It is contended that the petitioner suddenly stopped his motorcycle without any signal without observing the traffic rules and thereby there is contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner too. The respondent No.1 has denied that the petitioner has sustained injuries including fracture which caused permanent disablement. The petitioner is hale and healthy and attending to his normal work. The petitioner is not entitled to any compensation.
9. It is contended that the compensation in a sum of Rs.30 lakhs claimed by petitioner is very high, exorbitant and excessive. The averments of para No.6 that the petitioner was earning a sum of Rs.10,500/- per month by working as Tower Maintenance Technician with Dynamic Power Supplies is hereby denied and the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. The respondent No.1 has denied the nature of injuries, amount spent for treatment. The respondent No.1 contended that the accident tookplace due to the sole negligence of the petitioner himself and hence, the respondent No.1 is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. The respondent No.1 denies that the vehicle No.KA.51/A.616 was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. Hence, the respondent No.1 prays the Tribunal to dismiss the petition.
10. The respondent No.2 filed its statement of objections contending that the petition is not maintainable and further contended that the alleged accident has occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner and not on account of the negligence of the driver of the tanker lorry. It is contended that the tanker lorry is insured with the first respondent and 5 MVC No.3558/2014 the driver of the tanker lorry was having valid and effective driving licence and the vehicle was being used with valid Fitness Certificate and Permit and hence, there was no question of violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and hence, the liability if any, has to be saddled on the respondent No.1, the insurer. There was neither rashness nor negligence on the part of the driver of the tanker lorry. The petitioner, on account of his own his fault, in as much as, he suddenly stopped his motorcycle without signal and therefore, no negligence can be attributed to the driver of the tanker lorry. The respondent No.2 has denied the nature and gravity of the injuries suffered by the petitioner, amount spent for treatment and also the permanent disability said to have been suffered by the petitioner. Therefore, the respondent No.2 prays the Tribunal to dismiss the petition.
11. Based on the above pleadings of the parties, the following issues came to be framed by this Tribunal:-
1) Whether the petitioner proves that he sustained grievous injuries in a Motor Vehicle Accident that occurred on 03.06.2014 at about 02.30 pm., near Bommasandra Jigani Link Road, near Sunsera Company, Bangalore within the jurisdiction of Hebbagodi Police Station on account of rash and negligent driving of the tanker Lorry bearing registration No.KA.51/A.616 by its driver?
2) Whether the respondent No.1 proves that the accident occurred on account of negligent act of petitioner himself?
3) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
4) What order?
12. In order to substantiate his case, the petitioner got examined himself as PW 1. The petitioner has also examined the doctor, who 6 MVC No.3558/2014 treated him as PW 2 and in all 16 documents came to be marked on behalf of the petitioner as Ex.P.1 to P.16.
13. On behalf of the respondents, none has been examined nor any documents have been marked
14. After closure of the evidence of both parties, I have heard the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner as well as respondents.
15. The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment reported in 2013 ACJ 2131 (G.Ravindranath Vs. E.Srinivas and another) in support of his submissions.
16. Having heard the arguments of counsel for petitioner and the respondents and upon scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence placed before the Tribunal, my finding on the above issues are as under:-
1) In the affirmative,
2) In the negative,
3) Party in the affirmative,
4) As per final order, for the following:-
REASONS
17. Issue No.1 and 2:- Both these issues are taken up together for discussion, as they are interconnected to each other and the evidence is likely to overlap.
18. It is the case of the petitioner that on 03.06.2014, at about 02.30 pm., when he was riding motorcycle bearing registration No.KA.51/EE.9584 near Sunsera Company on Bommasandra-Jigani 7 MVC No.3558/2014 Link Road, Bengaluru slowly and cautiously, at that time, a tanker lorry came from behind in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner, as a result, the accident has occurred and in the accident, he suffered injuries.
19. On the other hand, the respondents have contended that the accident has occurred on account of the negligence of the petitioner himself.
20. The petitioner, in order to prove his contentions, examined himself as PW 1 and in his affidavit filed in the form of examination in chief, reiterated the averments made out in the petition and also got marked the documents such as FIR, Spot Mahazar, Police Intimation and Charge Sheet as Ex.P.1 to P.4.
21. The petitioner was subjected to cross-examination. In his cross- examination, the petitioner says that the offending vehicle driver came from rear side and dashed against his vehicle. He further says that there is a road divider in the road. It is suggested to him that he suddenly stopped the vehicle and hence, the accident has occurred and the said suggestion has been denied by him. It is further suggested to him that the accident has occurred due to his negligence and not on account of the driver of the offending vehicle and the said suggestion has been denied by him.
22. I have already pointed out that the respondents though filed statement of objections stoutly denying the manner in which the accident has occurred and contended that the accident has occurred due 8 MVC No.3558/2014 to the negligence of the petitioner, but they have not led evidence before the Court.
23. It has to be noted that in the cross-examination of PW 1, except making a suggestion that he has suddenly stopped the vehicle which has been denied by the petitioner, no other suggestion has been made to the petitioner. PW 1 categorically denied the suggestion that he suddenly stopped the vehicle without signal and hence the accident occurred. It is important to note that both the vehicles were proceeding in the same direction and it is also the case of the petitioner that the tanker lorry came from behind in rash and negligent manner and dashed against his motorcycle and as a result, he suffered injuries. On perusal of the FIR, Mahazar, Police Intimation and the Charge Sheet, which are marked as Ex.P.1 to P.4, the Police have conducted investigation into the matter and after investigation, filed charge sheet against the driver of the tanker lorry. It has to be noted that when the defence was taken by the respondents that the accident has occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner and not on account of the driver of the tanker lorry, it is the driver of the tanker lorry, who is the right person to speak as to how the accident has occurred, if not in the manner as narrated by the petitioner. But the respondents neither examined the driver of the tanker lorry, nor any other person. Under circumstances, the petitioner has successfully established that the accident has occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the tanker lorry by its driver and in the accident he suffered injuries. Even though the respondents contend that there is contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner in occurrence of the accident, but the same is not established by them by placing on record cogent evidence. Further, in the case reported in 2014 Kant M.A.C. 330 (SC) (Meera Devi and another Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation 9 MVC No.3558/2014 and others), it is held that when there is no cogent evidence to prove plea of contributory negligence, doctrine of common law cannot be applied. Accordingly, issue No.1 is answered in the affirmative and issue No.2 in the negative.
24. Issue No.3:- It is the contention of the petitioner that on account of the accident, he sustained grievous injuries and he was taken to nearby Sparsh Hospital, Bengaluru, wherein he took treatment and X- ray revealed that the petitioner has suffered the following injuries:-
a. Blunt injury abdomen with retroperitoneal bleeding b. Fracture pelvis with urethral injury c. Blunt injury chest with right pneumothorax d. Malgagnies fracture with urethral injury, urinary bladder rupture, intestinal perforation, multiple abrasions middle and lower back with degloving injury with bilateral moral level lesions.
25. In support of his contention, he has produced the Wound Certificate as Ex.P.5 issued by Sparsh Hospital, which discloses that the petitioner has suffered the above injuries. The doctor who issued the above Wound Certificate has opined the injuries as grievous in nature.
26. The petitioner has also produced 4 Discharge Summaries which are marked as Ex.P.6, which disclose that, at the first instance, the petitioner was admitted to Sparsh Hospital on 03.06.2014 and discharged on 26.06.2014. Again, he was admitted to the hospital on 19.09.2014 and was discharged on 22.09.2014. Again, he was admitted to Narayana Hrudayalaya on 24.10.2014 and discharged on 30.10.2014 and again he was admitted on 13.01.2015 and discharged on 15.01.2014.
10 MVC No.3558/2014During the said period, the petitioner was treated with external fixator for pelvis fracture, wound debridement and external fixator removal. The petitioner has also underwent cystoscopy and trans pubic urethroplasty, anastomatic urethroplasty and cystoscopy-VIU. The petitioner has also relied upon the evidence of PW 2 - Dr.Nagaraj B.N., working as Orthopaedic Surgeon and Medico-Legal Consultant at Sparsh Hospital, Bangalore. It is the evidence of PW 2 that petitioner came to their hospital on 03.06.2014 with the alleged history of road traffic accident, he had sustained Malgagnies fracture with urethral injury, bladder rupture and intestinal perforation, multiple abrasions middle and lower back with Degloving injury with bilateral morel lavelle lesion and was treated accordingly.
27. Thus, considering the nature, gravity of injuries and the period of treatment, I deem it just and proper to award compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head injury, pain and suffering to the petitioner.
28. The petitioner has stated that on account of the accidental injuries suffered by him in the accident, he has suffered permanent disability and thereby suffered loss of future earning capacity. In this regard, it is the evidence of petitioner that he has taken best available treatment and inspite of that, he is suffering from disability and that he is having severe pain all over the body, he is unable to work or do any day to day activities as before.
29. Further the petitioner has examined PW 2 Dr.B.N.Nagaraj, Orthopedic Surgeon and Medico Legal Consultant, Sparsh Hospital. In his evidence, PW 2 says that the petitioner had malgagnies fracture with urethral injury, bladder rupture and intestinal perforation and multiple abrasions middle and lower back with degloving injury with bilateral morel lavelle lesion and for that the petitioner was treated with external 11 MVC No.3558/2014 fixator with wound debridement and exploratory laparotomy was done on emergency basis and post operative, the petitioner developed right pneumothorax and hence, ICD was done and the petitioner underwent multiple blood transfusions due to hemodynamic shock and during his stay, the petitioner developed mental depression and he was on anti depressants. PW 2 further says that the petitioner was reviewed on 26.02.2015 for assessment of disability and the petitioner complained weakness in both lower limb, pain in the pelvis, unable to sit down and squat, unable to sit cross-legged, difficulty in walking and climbing stairs, unable to stand for a long time, difficulty in passing urine needs external support ie., catheter for passing urine, regular burning sensation while passing urine with blood, unable to masturbate. On examination, PW 2 observed unhealthy scar over the abdomen and both hip thigh region, contracture of skin around the groin region with cather in situ and PW 2 further says that after clinical examination and radiological examination and after having noticed the mobility component, stability component, he assessed that the petitioner has got permanent physical disability for right lower limb at 44 % and disability to his visceral injuries at 20% and to the whole body at 33%. PW 2 has given the detailed description of the assessment of disability in his affidavit.
30. PW2 has been cross-examined by the counsel for the respondents. In his cross-examination, PW 2 says that he has assessed the disability with regard to the pelvic fracture and further says that he has also assessed the disability with regard to the urethral injury, bladder rupture and intestinal perforation. It is suggested to him that Urogolist is competent to assess the disability and the said suggestion has been denied by him. He admits that injuries are treated by Urogolist. He states that he has consulted the Urogolist and also filed the report. He 12 MVC No.3558/2014 further says that the Urologist has assessed the disability at 20% with regard to the functioning of Urinary Bladder and Genito Urinary System and that the bladder has been reconstructed. It is suggested to him that once the bladder is reconstructed, it functions normally. He says that tubes which are implanted are permanent. It is suggested to him that the said tubes can be removed in one or two years and the said suggestion has been denied by him. It is suggested to him that pelvic fracture is cosmetic fracture. He admits that assessment made by him at 44% can be taken as 1/3rd and not for other assessment. It is suggested to him that if physiotherapy is done, the pelvic fracture will be reduced and the said suggestion has been denied by him. In his further cross- examination, he says that he did not notice about the incapability of erectile dysfunction at the time of making clinical examination of the petitioner. It is suggested to him that neurosurgeon is competent to given evidence for erectile dysfunction and the said suggestion has been denied by him. He admits that the petitioner is having sekral nerve injury. He further says that in the Case Sheet, he has mentioned about the erectile dysfunction. He says that the neurologist has treated the petitioner regarding the bladder problem and erectile issues. He admits that there is no neurological report that the petitioner is incompetent to have the sexual act. He says that before coming to the conclusion, he examined the patient clinically and the same is noted in the case sheet.
31. Now, let me appreciate both oral and documentary evidence available before the Court.
Here it has to be noted that the doctor who examined the patient is an Orthopedic Surgeon and furthermore, he has treated the petitioner and while considering the aspect of disability, the Court has to take note 13 MVC No.3558/2014 of the evidence of doctor, whether he has treated the petitioner or not. First of all, PW 2 is not only the treated doctor of petitioner, but also an Orthopedic Surgeon. It has to be noted that as per the evidence of doctor, there is 33% disability to the whole body and 44% disability to both lower limb and 20% to visceral injuries. The petitioner has suffered malgagnies fracture with urethral injury, bladder rupture and intestinal perforation and multiple abrasions middle and lower back with degloving injury with bilateral morel lavelle lesion and he was subjected to surgery and he was inpatient for 4 times for more than 40 days in various hospitals. Thus, after having considered the material on record and the evidence of PW 2 with regard to the disability, since the petitioner has suffered 64% disability to both lower limb and visceral injuries at his early age, I deem it just and proper to reduce the same to 22% disability, which is 1/3rd out of total disability, as against the disability of 33% stated by PW 2.
32. It is the case of the petitioner that he had to spend morethan Rs.8 lakhs for treatment and inspite of taking best treatment available, the injuries suffered by him in the accident, rendered him disabled person. In order to substantiate the amount spent towards treatment, the petitioner has got marked 95 medical bills amounting to Rs.7,44,719/- as per Ex.P.7. The petitioner has also produced 48 Prescriptions. I have gone through these bills and prescriptions. The petitioner has also produced another set of Bills as per Ex.P.9 for Rs.894/-. PW 1 admitted in his cross-examination that he has received Rs.50,000/- from ESI.
33. In this regard, the petitioner was cross-examined by the counsel for the respondent. In his cross-examination, he admits that he is having ESI Facility and he was inpatient for a period of 23 days at Sparsh Hospital and he further admits that he has taken ESI facility to 14 MVC No.3558/2014 the tune of Rs.70,000/- and the witness volunteers that those bills are not given to him, since the amounts are paid by the ESI Corporation and those bills are also not produced. He says that he does not know about the Health Insurance made by Mahindra and Mahindra Company to the employees. It is suggested to him that Star Health and Allied Insurance Company has made the payment of entire bills of Sparsh Hospital and the said suggestion has been denied by him. It is suggested to him that entire medical expenses were borne by Star Health and Allied Insurance Company and he is giving false evidence before the Court and the said suggestion has been denied by him. In his further cross-examination, he says that he does not know the extent of liability as per the Health Insurance and that they have made payment of Rs.50,000/- only. In this regard, the petitioner got marked Ex.P.16 issued by Sparsh Hospital, which says that the petitioner has availed Health Insurance benefit of R.50,000/- from Star Health and Allied Insurance Company and the remaining amount has been paid by the petitioner. As against the same, the respondent has not made out any grounds to disbelieve either the bills produced as per Ex.P.7 and 9 or regarding payment of entire amount medical bill by the Star Health Insurance Company. Therefore, after giving deduction to the amount of Rs.50,000/- received by the petitioner from Star Health Insurance Company as above, the petitioner is entitled to Rs.6,95,613/- under the head medical expenses.
34. As discussed above, the petitioner was inpatient on 4 occasions in different hospitals for more than 40 days. The petitioner must have incurred some amount towards transportation, attendant charges and other incidental expenses. Therefore, I award in all Rs.40,000/- under the head, attendant charges, conveyance expenses and other incidental expenses.
15 MVC No.3558/201435. The petitioner though claimed that he was aged 24 years and working as Tower Maintenance Technician with M/s.Dynamic Power Supply and getting a salary of Rs.10,500/- per month and to substantiate the same, he has produced Ex.P.10 Letter issued by his employer and Pay Slip as per Ex.P.11. As far as the age of the petitioner is concerned, though he says that he was aged 24 years at the time of accident, but Ex.P.6 - Discharge Summary issued by Sparsh Hospital, wherein the petitioner was admitted immediately after the accident, the age of petitioner is shown to be 26 years. Even though other Discharge Summaries show that the age of the petitioner as 24 years 6 months and so on, but Ex.P.6 came into existence immediately after the accident. Therefore, considering the same, in the absence of Birth Certificate or any School Certificate of petitioner showing his correct date of birth, I deem it just and proper to take the age of the petitioner as 26 years.
36. As far as avocation and income of the petitioner is concerned, as stated above, though Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.11 reflects that the petitioner was working with Dynamic Power Engineer and earning Rs.10,500/- per month and Ex.P.11 are pay slips for 6 months, the petitioner having produced the said documents, ought to have examined the author of those documents, or at least produced Bank Statement for having drawn the said salary. In the absence of corroborative evidence from the author of these documents, it is difficult to accept the contents of these documents. Hence, considering the age of the petitioner as 26 years as recorded in the Medical Record ie., Ex.P.6, the petitioner's income is fixed at Rs.8,000/- per month.
37. As discussed above, the income of the petitioner is taken as Rs.8,000/- and the disability is taken at 22%. At the said rate, monthly 16 MVC No.3558/2014 loss of income works out to Rs.1,760/- and annually, it works out to Rs.21,120/-. As discussed above, the age of the petitioner at the time of accident was 26 years and thereby, the multiplier applicable to the case on hand is 17. Thus, if we multiply the annual loss of income ie., Rs.21,120/- by 17 multiplier, it works out to Rs.3,59,040/-, to which the petitioner is entitled to under the head loss of income on account of disability.
38. Regarding the loss of income during the period of treatment is concerned, it is the case of the petitioner that after the accident, he was inpatient for more than 40 days on four occasions on different dates from 03.06.2014 and since, he has suffered fractures, it requires at least 4 months to heal. As discussed above, the income of petitioner is taken as Rs.8,000/-. During the said period, the petitioner cannot be expected to have attended to his work. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.32,000/- towards loss of income during the period of treatment for 4 months at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month.
39. The petitioner has suffered fractures apart from erectile dysfunction. Certainly, there will be effect of the injuries throughout his life. The petitioner has suffered erectile dysfunction at the age of 26 years and he is unmarried and the doctor also opined that the erectile dysfunction will be there throughout his life and he cannot pass urine and catheter is advised and he is having catheter and with the help of catheter, he has to attend the nature call. Considering the age and the nature of disability suffered by the petitioner, I deem it just and proper to award Rs.50,000/- under the head loss of amenities in life and Rs.1,00,000/- under the head loss of marriage prospectus.
17 MVC No.3558/201440. The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision reported in 2013 ACJ 2131 (G.Ravindranath Vs E.Srinivas and another. In the said case also, the victim had suffered fracture and grievous injuries in pelvic region and total rupture of urethra resulting in impotence and the injured was suffering from severe pain and was not passing urine through normal course, requiring catheterization and suffered erectile dysfunction. In the said case, the Tribunal had awarded compensation of Rs.2,10,000/-, which was enhanced to Rs.4,35,000/- by the High Court and the Apex Court had finally awarded in all Rs.20,20,000/-. I have gone through and taken into consideration the principles laiddown in the said judgment while awarding compensation in this case.
41. The petitioner is held entitled to compensation under the following heads:-
Sl.No. Heads of compensation Amount
Rs. Ps.
1. Pain and sufferings 1,00,000.00
2. Conveyance charges, attendant charges 40,000.00
and other incidental expenses
3. Medical expenses 6,95,613.00
4. Loss of income on account of disability
3,59,040.00
5. Loss of income during the period of
treatment 32,000.00
6. Loss of amenities in life 50,000.00
7. Loss of marriage prospectus 1,00,000.00
Total
13,76,653.00
42. While answering issue No.1, it is held that the accident has occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the tanker lorry by 18 MVC No.3558/2014 its driver. The respondent No.1 being the insurer and the respondent No.2 being the owner, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.
43. In a case reported in (2011) 4 SCC 481 : (AIR 2012 SC 100) (Municipal Council of Delhi Vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy), the Supreme Court has held that the Court has to take into account the rate of interest of the nationalized bank and the present day cost of living and thereby awarded, interest on the compensation amount at 9% p.a. I have no reasons to deviate from the said view of the Apex Court. Accordingly, interest on compensation amount is awarded at 9% p.a. Accordingly, issue No.3 is answered.
44. Issue No.4;- In the result I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in part.
The petitioner is awarded compensation of Rs.13,76,653/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization from the respondents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally. The primary liability is fixed on the respondent No.1 Insurance Company, who shall pay the compensation amount within 2 months from the date of this order.
Out of the compensation amount, 50% with proportionate interest shall be invested in high yielding fixed deposit in the name of petitioner for a period of 5 years, in any of the nationalized or scheduled bank of the choice of petitioner. Remaining amount with proportionate interest is ordered to be released to the petitioner.19 MVC No.3558/2014
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw an award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment writer, transcription thereof corrected, revised and then pronounced by me in open court on 16.06.2015) (H.P.SANDESH) Member, Prl. M.A.C.T. Bangalore ANNEXURES List of witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner PW 1 - Mruthunjaya PW 2 - Dr.Nagaraj B.N., List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Respondents - Nil List of documents marked on behalf of the petitioner :
Ex.P1: Copy of FIR Ex.P2: Copy of Mahazar Ex.P3: Police Intimation Ex.P4: Charge Sheet Ex.P5: Wound Certificate Ex.P6: Discharge Summaries (4) Ex.P7: Medical Bills Ex.P.8: Medical Prescriptions Ex.P.9: Medical Bills Ex.P.10: Letter issued by the Employer Ex.P.11: Pay Slips in respect of petitioner Ex.P.12: 2 Photos Ex.P.13: Case Sheet Ex.P.14: 15 X rays Ex.P.15: Enhancement Letter Ex.P.16: Letter issued by Sparsh Hospital
List of documents marked on behalf of the Respondents: Nil (H.P.SANDESH) Member, Prl. M.A.C.T. Bangalore