Bangalore District Court
Jagadeesh vs Ramasubbu A on 29 January, 2025
KABC020028982022
IN THE COURT OF III ADDL.JUDGE AND MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES, BENGALURU
(SCCH-18)
Dated: This the 29th day of January 2025
Present: DHANESH MUGALI
B.Com., LL.B.,(Spl.)
III ADDL. JUDGE &
MEMBER, MACT
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU.
M.V.C. No.498/2022
Petitioner : Sri. Jagadeesha,
S/o Giddegowda,
Aged about 42 years,
Residing at:
Malali village and Post,
Halekote Hobali,
Holenarasipura Taluk,
Hassan, Karnataka - 573 220.
(By Pleader Sri.N.Shivaram)
V/s
Respondents : 1. Sri.Ramasubbu A.
S/o Ariyanayagam,
Major,
Residing at: No.163,
Thiruchengode road,
2 SCCH-18 MVC 498/2022
Namakkal District, Namakkal,
Tamilnadu - 637001.
Also residing at:
No.388/7B, Indiranagar,
Bedarapalli, Sipcot Post,
Hosur Taluk,
Krishnagiri District.
Tamil Nadu - 635 110.
(By Pleader Shri
M.Krishnamurthy
2. The Regional Manager,
United India General Insurance Co.
Ltd., Regional Office,
Motor TP Hub, Krishi Bhavana,
5th and 6th Floor, Hudson Circle,
Bangalore 560 001.
(By Pleader Shri S.R.Srinatha)
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident.
The brief facts of the petitioner's case are as under:
2. That on 09-12-2021 at about 9-00 a.m. the petitioner was proceeding in his TATA ACE bearing registration No.KA-53-5869 towards Koramangala on 3 SCCH-18 MVC 498/2022 Tumkur - Bangalore NH-48 service road, when he reached near Arisinakunte, Tumkur, Nelmangala town, Bangalore district, at that time, one Ashok Leyland Lorry bearing registration No.TN-70-F-9363 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came at high speed from same direction and dashed the petitioner's vehicle. As a result, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries.
3. It is further stated that, immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Swasthya Hospital, Nelamangala, wherein he took treatment as an inpatient, undergone surgery and discharged with an advise of follow-up treatment. He had spent Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical expenses, conveyance and nourishment.
4. It is stated that, prior to the accident the petitioner hale, healthy and was working as a driver and earning Rs.18,000/- p.m. Due to the accidental injuries, he could not able to do any work as earlier.
5. It is stated that, the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent act of the driver of Ashok leyland lorry bearing registration No.TN-70-F-9363.4 SCCH-18 MVC 498/2022
In this regard, case was registered against the driver of offending vehicle by the jurisdictional Nelamangala Traffic Police, in Crime No.450/2021. As such, the respondents No.1 being the R.C. owner and the respondent No.2 being the insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has filed the instant petition, seeking compensation.
6. In response to the notice, the respondent No.1 & 2 were appeared through their respective counsel and filed the written statements.
7. The respondent No.1 in its written statement contended that, he is the RC Owner of the Ashok Leyland Lorry bearing registration No.TN-70- F-9363 and policy was valid on the date of the accident, hence respondent No.2 has to indemnify the respondent No.1. It is contended that, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. Further, denied the age, income and avocation of the petitioner and expenses incurred towards medical and other incidental charges. Further contended that the claim of the petitioner is highly excessive, exaggerated and 5 SCCH-18 MVC 498/2022 arbitrary. With all these main grounds, prayed to dismiss the petition with cost.
8. The respondent No.2 in the written statement has contended that the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case. Further, this respondent has admitted about issuance of insurance policy in respect of Ashok Leyland lorry bearing registration No.TN-70-F-9363 and liability is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. Further it has stated that, the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence, permit and FC to the said vehicle as on the date of the accident, hence there is a violation of terms and conditions of the policy. It is contended that, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. Further, denied the age, income and avocation of the Petitioner and expenses incurred towards medical and other incidental charges. Further contended that the claim of the petitioner is highly excessive, exaggerated and arbitrary. With all these main grounds, prayed to dismiss the petition with cost.
6 SCCH-18 MVC 498/20229. On the basis of rival pleadings of both the parties, this court has framed the following issues;
ISSUES
1) Whether the petitioner proves that, he had sustained grievous injuries in a motor vehicle accident that was taken place on 9.12.2021 at about 9.00 a.m., near Arisinakunte, on Tumkur-
Bengaluru, NH-48 road, Nelamangala Town, Bengaluru district, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Ashok Leyland Lorry No.TN-70- F-9363 in an actionable negligence ?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation as prayed for? If so, at what rate ? From whom?
3) What order or award?
10. In order to substantiate the case of the petitioner, he himself examined as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. In addition to his evidence placed the evidence of Dr.S.A.Somashekara as PW2 and got marked the documents at Ex.P15 & 1Ex.P16.
7 SCCH-18 MVC 498/202211. On the other hand, inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the respondents have not led any oral or documentary evidence on their behalf.
12. Heard the arguments of both the counsel and perused the materials available on record.
13. My answer to the aforesaid issues are as follows:
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative.
Issue No.2: Partly in the Affirmative.
Issue No.3: As per final order,
for the following:
R E A S O N S
ISSUE NO.1:-
14. It is the specific case of the petitioner that, due to the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of Ashok Leyland Lorry bearing registration No.TN-70-F-9363, the alleged accident had taken place, consequently he had sustained grievous injuries.
15. On the other hand, the respondents, though not disputed the accident and the injuries sustained by the petitioner, seriously disputed the 8 SCCH-18 MVC 498/2022 actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle.
16. The petitioner in order to prove his case, examined himself as PW1. PW1 in her examination- in-chief by way of affidavit has reiterated the averments made in the petition. The petitioner in support of her oral evidence has relied upon Ex.P1 to P9. Ex.P1-true copy of the F.I.R. in Crime No.450/2021 of Nelamangala Traffic Police Station, Ex.P2-true copy of the first information statement given by the petitioner. Ex.P3- spot mahazar, Ex.P4- true copy of spot sketch, Ex.P5 -notice u/s 133 of M.V. Act, Ex.P6-reply to notice u/s 133 of MV Act, Ex.P7-true copy of wound certificate of the petitioner, Ex.P8-true copy of IMV report, Ex.P9-true copy of charge sheet in Crime No.450/2021 of Adugodi Traffic police.
17. On perusal of the police documents, it could be seen that, based upon the first information statement given by the petitioner, the S.H.O. of Nelamangala Traffic Police has registered the case against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offences punishable under Sections 279 & 337 of 9 SCCH-18 MVC 498/2022 IPC. Upon investigation, the I.O. has filed charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle alleging that he has committed the offences punishable under section 279 and 338 of IPC.
18. Apart from this, even at the time of cross- examination of PW1, no material answers culled out to believe the defenses of the respondent No.1 about the denial of allegation made against the driver of the offending vehicle.
19. On the contrary, the respondent No.2 has not made an effort to examine the driver of the offending vehicle or any of the eye witnesses to prove that accident has not occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle.
20. In the light of the evidence placed on record, it is crystal clear that, the alleged accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Ashok Leyland Lorry bearing registration No.TN-70-F-9363. As such, the petitioner has placed the satisfactory and convincing evidence on record to prove the above issue. Hence, without making much discussion on the point of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 10 SCCH-18 MVC 498/2022 offending vehicle, I am answering the issue No.1, in the Affirmative.
ISSUE NO.2 :
21. This issue is with respect to the entitlement of reliefs claimed by the petitioner. The petitioner through this petition, claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident under different heads.
22. Before appreciation of the evidence placed by the petitioner about the injuries sustained by him, in the accident and its consequences, it is apt to note herein, the preposition laid down in the following land mark judgment, while appreciating the injury cases in Motor Vehicle Act.
Civil Appeal No.8981/2010 D.D. 18.10.2010 Rajkumar V/s Ajay Kumar & Another of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
"In the aforesaid case, it was held that, the court has to make judicious attempt to award compensation to the loss suffered by the claimant. The compensation should not be assessed conservatively. On the other hand, compensation should also not be endeavouring to secure some uniformity and consistency. The object of 11 SCCH-18 MVC 498/2022 awarding compensation is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done, as far as money can do so, in a fair reasonable and equitable manner." "while determining quantum of compensation, in such cases, the court has to strike a balance between the inflated and unreasonable demands of a victim and the equally untenable claim of the opposite party saying that nothing is payable. That sympathy for the victim does not, and should not, comes in the way of making a correct assessment. But if a case is made out, and the court must not be chary of awarding adequate compensation. "
Pain and Sufferings;
23. PW1 has stated in his evidence that, he has sustained the injuries in a road traffic accident. In connection with the injuries he has produced wound certificate marked as Ex.P7. The said document discloses that, he had sustained the following injuries:-
Fracture of isolated 1/3rd left ulnar
24. In connection with the above said injury, the doctor is of the opinion that the said injury is grievous in nature. Further, the petitioner has produced discharge summary issued by Swasthya Hospital as per Ex.P10 discloses that the petitioner 12 SCCH-18 MVC 498/2022 was treated as an inpatient from 9.12.2021 to 13.12.2021. In addition to his evidence, placed the evidence of Dr.S.A.Somashekar as PW2. PW2 has stated in his evidence that the petitioner has sustained fracture left hand distal ulna and placed clinical examination notes and x-ray as per Ex.P15 & Ex.P16. By taking into consideration of the nature of the injuries and the treatment taken by the petitioner, he could have undergone pain and sufferings while taking treatment, as an in patient as well as an outpatient. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.30,000/- under the head of Pain and Sufferings.
Loss of income during treatment period:
25. PW1 has stated that, he was working as a driver and earning a sum of Rs.18,000/- per month.
There is no iota of documents to prove the income of the petitioner. In the absence of the documents, it is apt to be considered notional income of the petitioner. On going through the discharge summary issued by Swasthya Hospital as per Ex.P10 discloses that the petitioner was treated as an inpatient from 9.12.2021 to 13.12.2021. During the period of treatment, definitely, there was some difficulty to 13 SCCH-18 MVC 498/2022 him to do daily routine work and to do his work for livelihood at least for a period of one month by looking in to the nature of the injuries sustained by him. Hence, I am of the view that, it is just and proper to award compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of income during the laid up period and rest period.
Medical Expeneses;
26. The petitioner in connection with his treatment expenses produced medical bills at Ex.P12 to the extent of Rs.1,24,050/- along with prescriptions at Ex.P11 and advance receipts at Ex.P13. The respondent though suggested that the medical bills are created for the purpose of this case, but not placed sufficient documents to show the medical bills are created for the purpose of this case. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,24,050/- towards medical expenses.
Attendant charges, food and nourishment and conveyance charges;
27. The petitioner herein, as per the medical records and also on going through the discharge summary the petitioner has taken treatment as an 14 SCCH-18 MVC 498/2022 inpatient and also as an outpatient, definitely the petitioner could have spent some amount towards, food, nourishment, conveyance, as well as towards attendant charges. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges, food, nourishment and conveyance charges.
Loss of future income;
28.The petitioner herein, asserting that, he had sustained permanent disability, consequent upon the injuries sustained by him. In order to prove the same, the petitioner has relied on his evidence along with the wound certificate and other medical documents. In the evidence of the PW1, reiterated the same thing forthcoming in the main petition. As already discussed above, wound certificate placed by him as per Ex.P7 goes to show that, he had sustained grievous injury for which he took the treatment as an inpatient. Apart from this, another material witness by name Dr.S.A.Somashekar examined as PW2. PW2 has stated in his evidence that the petitioner has sustained sustained fracture left hand distal ulna and underwent surgery in the form of ORIF with DC plate under G.A. Further, 15 SCCH-18 MVC 498/2022 PW2 has stated that, at the time of his examination of the petitioner for assessment of disability, the petitioner has pain and difficulty in using left upper limb for activities of daily living, wasting of left upper limb is seen, surgical scars are seen over left forearm deformity of right elbow. X-rays shows united fracture ulna with implants in situ.
29. At the time of cross-examination of PW2, stated that he is the treated doctor and admitted that the fracture is united. Further denied the suggestion that he assessed the disability of the petitioner on higher side.
30. Over all appreciation of evidence of PW2 along with the entire medical documents the whole body disability expressed by PW2 as 28% of left upper limb and 14% of whole body. Hence, by taking into consideration of point of disability expressed by PW2, it is apt to take whole body disability as 9% instead of 14%. The same will meets the ends of justice.
31. In connection with the age of the petitioner is concerned, on going through the cause title of the petition reveals that, as on the date of the petition, 16 SCCH-18 MVC 498/2022 his age was 42 years. In support of the age proof, he has placed Aadhar card marked at Ex.P14 for consideration. On going through the said documents, the date of birth of the petitioner has been mentioned as 10.11.1979. The accident occurred on 9.12.2021. Therefore, as on the date of accident, the age of the petitioner is considered as 42 years. To the said age as per Sarla Verma case, multiplier '14' is to be taken into consideration.
32. Next factual aspect of the income of the petitioner is concerned, in his evidence the petitioner has stated that, prior to the accident he was working as a driver and getting an income of Rs.18,000/-. There is no iota of documents to prove his income. In the absence of the material documents, notional income has to be taken into consideration. But the said notional income is to be taken judiciously, by taking into consideration of the year of the accident. It is pertinent to note that, in the case on hand, the alleged accident had taken place in the year 2021. As per the notional income chart, I am of the view that, it is apt to take the notional income of the petitioner as Rs.15,000/- for the year 2021.
17 SCCH-18 MVC 498/202233. In the light of my detailed discussions held above, no doubt injuries sustained by the petitioner, definitely come in the way of his future, in a slight manner, to do his daily routine work, as well as to do his work for livelihood on going through his age criteria. Hence, the petitioner herein, is entitled for compensation under loss of future income as follows:
Rs.15,000 X 12 X 14 X 9/100= Rs.2,26,800/-
Loss of amenities;
34. PW1 has stated in his evidence that due to the accidental injuries he cannot discharge his duties effectively. On perusal of evidence of PW2 and also medical documents, I am of the view that, the petitioner will suffer a slight problem in future also, to do his normal work, as well as his work for livelihood. Hence, it is just and proper to award compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities.
Future Medical Expenses;
35. PW2 has stated that the petitioner requires one more surgery for removal of implants, which would cost around Rs.40,000/-. Relying on the 18 SCCH-18 MVC 498/2022 opinion of the doctor, it is just and proper to award Rs.20,000/- under the head of future medical expenses.
36. In view of my discussions held above, on various aspects the petitioner is entitled for compensation in to to, under the following heads:
Compensation heads Compensation amount
1.Pain and Suffering Rs. 30,000-00
2.Loss of income during Rs. 15,000-00 laid-up period and rest period
3. Medical expenses Rs.1,24,050-00
4. Attendant, Nourishment Rs. 10,000-00 and Conveyance Charges
5. Loss of future income Rs.2,26,800-00 due to disability
6. Loss of Amenities Rs. 10,000-00
7. Future medication Rs. 20,000-00 Total Rs.4,35,850-00
37. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.4,35,850/- (Rupees four lakh thirty five thousand eight hundred and fifty only), along with interest @ 6% per annum, as per the proposition laid down by the Honourable High 19 SCCH-18 MVC 498/2022 court of Karnataka in, MFA No.103557/2016, between Sri Ram General Insurance Company Limited V/S. Lakshmi And Others dated. 20.03.2018. And MFA No.30131/2019 dated.12.5.2020, from the date of the petition, till the realization of the award amount.
LIABILITY:
38. As regards the liability is concerned, it is the assertion of the petitioner that, due to actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the Ashok Leyland Lorry bearing registration No.TN-70-F-9363 alleged accident had taken place. The evidence given by the petitioner in connection with the issue No.1, remained unshaken.
39. The respondent No.2 insurance company has admitted about the issuance of the policy and its validity from 27.6.2021 to 26.6.2022. The alleged accident had taken place on 9.12.2021. As such, I am of the view that, the respondent No.1 being the owner and the respondent No.2 being insurance company of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. In view of the valid insurance policy, the respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition, till its 20 SCCH-18 MVC 498/2022 realization. Accordingly, I am answering the issue No.2 partly in the Affirmative.
ISSUE NO.3:
40. In view of above discussions on issue Nos.1 & 2, I proceed to pass the following;
O R D E R The claim petition filed by the petitioner U/s 166 of M.V. Act is partly allowed with cost.
The petitioner is entitled for
compensation of Rs.4,35,850/- (Rupees
four lakh thirty five thousand eight
hundred and fifty only), along with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of the petition till the realization of the award amount.
The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. In view of the valid insurance policy, the respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization within two months from the date of this order.
21 SCCH-18 MVC 498/2022Expenses to be incurred for future medication shall not carry any interest.
After deposit of the compensation amount with interest, 40% is directed to be deposited in any Nationalized/Scheduled bank in F.D for a period of 3 years and remaining 60% shall be released to the petitioner through due process of law.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1000/-. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 29th day of January 2025).
(DHANESH MUGALI) III ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER MACT & ACJM, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on petitioner's side:
PW1 Sri.Jagadeesh PW2 Dr.S.A.Somashekara
List of documents exhibited on petitioner's side:
Ex.P1 FIR Ex.P2 First information statement Ex.P3 Spot mahazar Ex.P4 Spot sketch 22 SCCH-18 MVC 498/2022 Ex.P5 Notice u/s 133 of M.V. Act Ex.P6 Reply to notice u/s 133 of M.V. Act Ex.P7 Wound certificate Ex.P8 IMV report Ex.P9 Charge sheet Ex.P10 Discharge summary Ex.P11 Prescriptions Ex.P12 Medical bills Ex.P13 Advance receipts Ex.P14 Aadhar card Ex.P15 Clinical note Ex.P16 X-ray
List of witnesses examined on respondents' side:
- Nil -
List of documents exhibited on respondents' side:
- Nil -
III ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE MEMBER MACT & ACJM, BENGALURU.