Bangalore District Court
In Mvc No.4272/2014 Sunil.B vs In All The Cases: 1. Sudarshanachar.P.H on 4 March, 2016
IN THE COURT OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.
SCCH-14
PRESENT: BASAVARAJ CHENGTI., B.Com.,LL.B.,(spl)
Member, MACT,
XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes,
BANGALRE.
MVC No.4272/2014, 4273/2014 & 4274/2014
Dated this the 4th day of March 2016.
Petitioner in MVC No.4272/2014 SUNIL.B
S/o Bojjegowda
Aged about 29 years,
R/at No.79/94,
Balaji Badavane,
Byadarahalli,
Bangalore-91.
(By pleader Sri NMP)
Petitioner in MVC No.4273/2014 SRIDHAR.M
S/o Muniraju
Aged about 24 years,
R/at No.86, Ist main,
Kempegowda Nagara,
Magadi main road,
Bangalore-560 091.
(By pleader Sri NMP)
Petitioner in MVC No.4274/2014 RANGASWAMY K.M
S/o Mariguddiah,
Aged about 30 years,
R/at No.16, 2nd stage,
BEL Layout,
Magadi main road,
Bangalore-560 091.
(By pleader Sri NMP)
/.O
SCCH-14 2 MVC No.4272, 4273 &
4274/2014
Respondents in all the cases: 1. SUDARSHANACHAR.P.H
S/o Hanumantharappa
No.6, 8th cross,
13th main, Mallasandra,
Bagalgunte,
Bangalore-57.
(RC Owner of the Car)
(By pleader Sri KSG)
2. THE MANAGER
RELIANCE GENERAL
INS.,CO.LTD.,
No.28, East Wing, 5th floor,
Centenary Building,
M.G road,
Bangalore-560 001.
(Insurer of the Car)
(By pleader Sri KMR)
XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes & MACT.,
BANGALORE.
SCCH-14 3 MVC No.4272, 4273 &
4274/2014
COMMON JUDGMENT
The petitioners in these cases have filed the petitions
U/sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of
Rs.15,00,000/- respectively with cost and interest for the injuries
sustained by them in a road traffic accident. These three petitions
are arising out of the same accident and hence, they are clubbed
together for common trial and for common Judgment.
2. Brief averments of the claim petitions are as under:
On 31.08.2014 at about 03.30 p.m., all the petitioners were
walking on the left side of Tunganagra main road. When they
reached near Heritage Kalyana Matappa, at that time, TATA Indica
Car bearing No.KA-52-6408 driven by its driver at high speed, in
rash and negligent manner came and dashed against the
petitioners from behind. Due to impact, all the petitioners fell down
and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, all of them were
taken to Ashraya Hospital, Bangalore, wherein they were admitted
as inpatients for 20 days and were discharged with an advice to
take follow up treatment and bed rest. The petitioners are still
under treatment. They have spent Rs.3,00,000/- each toward
medicine, conveyance, and nourishment. The petitioners were
hale and health, were aged about 29 years, 30 years and 24 years
respectively, were working as painter, driver and painter
respectively and were earning Rs.15,000/- each per month prior
to the accident. Due to accidental injuries, petitioners are unable
to carry on their occupation or a period of 6 months as a result of
loss of earning and earning capacity. Tavarekere police have
SCCH-14 4 MVC No.4272, 4273 &
4274/2014
registered in Cr.No.627/2014 against the driver of TATA Indica Car
bearing No.KA-52-6408 for the offences punishable U/Sec.279,
337 of IPC & U/Sec.187 of MV Act. The respondents are the owner
and insurer of said car and are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation to the petitioners with the cost and interest. Hence,
the petitions.
3. In pursuance of the notice, the respondents have
appeared before the court through their respective counsel. The
respondent no.2 has filed objection statement in all the cases, but
the respondent no.1 has not filed his objection statement in all the
cases. The respondent no.2 has admitted the issuance of policy in
favour of the respondent no.1 in respect of TATA Indica Car
bearing No.KA-52-6408, but he has denied the other averments of
the petitions as false. He has contended that the driver of insured
vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and the
vehicle was used without valid permit and FC on the date of
accident, that the insured has violated the terms and conditions of
the policy and hence, he is not liable to indemnify the respondent
no.1, that insured vehicle was not involved in the accident, that
the insured and concerned police have not complied with their
statutory demand, that the petitions filed by the petitioners is
false, malicious, incorrect and malafide and are nothing but an
abuse of the process of the law, that the compensation claimed by
the petitioners is highly excessive, exorbitant and exaggerated.
Hence, he has sought for dismissal of the petitions with cost as
against him.
SCCH-14 5 MVC No.4272, 4273 &
4274/2014
4. On the basis of above pleadings, the following common
issues were framed:
COMMON ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he
sustained grievious injuries in the nature
of permanent disablement on 31.08.2014
at about 03.30 p.m., Near Heritage
Kalyana Mantapa, Tunganagara Main
Road, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore
North Taluk, in an accident arising due to
rash and negligent driving of driver of
TATA Indica Car bearing No.KA-52-6408?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, how much and
from whom?
3. What Order or Award?
5. At the instance of the petitioners, these petitions are
clubbed together for common evidence and disposal by a common
Judgment. During the evidence, all the petitioners have examined
themselves as PW.1 to 3. They have examined a doctor as PW.4.
They have got marked documents at Ex.P1 to 32. The respondent
no.2 has not produced any evidence on his behalf.
6. Heard the arguments and perused the records.
[[
7. My findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 in all the cases : In Affirmative.
Issue No.2 : In MVC.No.4272/14 : In Affirmative.
Rs.6,33,000/- from the respondent no.2.
In MVC.No.4273/14 : In Affirmative.
Rs.6,54,000/- from the respondent no.2.
In MVC No.4274/14 : In Affirmative.
Rs.5,14,000/- from the respondent no.2.
Issue No.3 in all the cases : As per final order
SCCH-14 6 MVC No.4272, 4273 &
4274/2014
REASONS
8. ISSUE NO.1 IN ALL THE CASES: Occurrence of
accident, involvement car bearing No.KA-55-6408 and negligence
of the driver of car for the occurrence of accident are denied. PW.1
to 3 are the petitioners and they have deposed as per the
averments of their respective petitions. They have got marked
Ex.P1 to 7, 11 to 13, 16, 17, 21 to 32 and examined PW.4 Dr.Arjun
S Prakash to corroborate their oral evidence. The respondent no.1
has no defence and the respondent no.2 has no evidence to
substantiate his defence. PW.1 Sunil, PW.2: Shridhar and PW.3:
Ragaswamy have deposed that the accident has occurred due to
rash and negligent driving of the driver of car bearing No.KA-55-
6408 in which they have sustained grievous injuries resulting in
permanent disability. Wound certificates and discharge summaries
at Ex.P6, 7, 11, 12, 16 and 17 corroborate the evidence of PW.1
to 3 as to causing of fracture injury to them in the accident. The
petitioners were taken to hospital at 04.00 p.m., on 31.08.2014
with history of RTA. Vehicle number and place of accident are
mentioned in wound certificate. Police intimation at Ex.P21, 25
and 29 were sent to police immediately. Accident register extract at
Ex.P22, 26 and 30 reveal that car bearing No.KA-55-6408 was
involved in the accident. IP case sheets at Ex.P23, 27, 31 are
consistent with wound certificates and discharge summaries.
X-rays at Ex.P24, 28 and 32 support the version of PW.1 to 4
regarding nature of injury caused to the petitioners. Chargesheet is
filed against the driver of car bearing No.KA-55-6408 for causing
simple and grievous injuries to the petitioners. PW.4 Dr. Arjun has
SCCH-14 7 MVC No.4272, 4273 &
4274/2014
stated about the injuries caused to the petitioners and it is
corroborated by medical records. Hence, I hold that all the
petitioners have sustained grievous injuries in the accident
resulting in permanent disability to all of them.
9. FIR regarding accident was lodged on 01.09.2014 at
09.00 a.m., by PW.1: Sunil. There was a delay of about 17 hours in
lodging complaint, but all the petitioners were admitted to hospital
and hence, delay is reasonable and acceptable. Tavarekere police
have registered Cr.No.627/2014, investigated the matter and filed
chargesheet against the driver of car bearing No.KA-55-6408 who
is none other than the respondent no.1. IMV report reveals that the
brake system of the car was in order. The accident was not due to
any mechanical defects. Since, the car has dashed against
pedestrians, it is probable that car did not get damaged.
Chargesheet filed by the police is prima-facie evidence as to
negligence of the respondent no.1. There is nothing on record to
believe that the chargesheet is defective or collusive. Evidence of
PW.1 to 3 reveals that the driver of car bearing No.KA-55-6408 was
negligent and caused accident. The respondent no.2 has not
examined any witness. The respondent no.1 is the driver cum
owner of the said car. He was the best witness to speak about
accident. He was neither examined by the respondent no.2 nor he
himself appeared before court. Hence, evidence of PW.1 to 3 and
contents of police records are believable as to manner of accident
and its result. Similarly, the evidence of PW.1 to 3 is corroborated
by the evidence of PW.4 and contents of medical records as to
nature of injuries caused to the petitioners and result of such
SCCH-14 8 MVC No.4272, 4273 &
4274/2014
injuries upon them. Evidence of PW.4 that the petitioners have
suffered permanent disability due to accidental injuries is
believable. Hence, I hold that the petitioners have succeeded to
prove that the accident has occurred due to negligence of the
driver of car bearing No.KA-55-6408 in which they have sustained
simple and grievous injuries and suffered permanent disability.
The respondent no.2 has not produced any evidence to prove his
defence. Hence, I answer the issue in affirmative.
10. ISSUE NO.2 IN MVC No.4272/14: PW.1 and PW.4
have deposed and Ex.P6, 7, 23 and 24 are marked for the
petitioner Sunil to prove the injuries caused to him, treatment
given to him and disability suffered by him. The said oral and
documentary evidence disclose that the petitioner has sustained
following injuries:
1. Fracture of tibial condyle left
2. Fracture of distal end radius of left
3. Abrasion of left knee.
The petitioner was an inpatient for 15 days from 31.08.2014
to 14.09.2014 and underwent following procedures in Ashraya
Hospital:
ORIF with plate and screws for left tibia and
K wire fixation for radius fracture.
Recent examination of the petitioner revealed as follows:
1. Complete union of all fractures,
2. Restriction of ranger of movement of left
ankle
3. Restriction of movement of left knee
4. Restriction of movement of left wrist,
5. Difficulty in carrying out activities of
daily living.
SCCH-14 9 MVC No.4272, 4273 &
4274/2014
11. PW.4 Dr.Arjun S. Prakash has assessed the
permanent disability suffered by the petitioner @55% to left upper
and lower limbs and @18% to whole body. He has admitted that
fractures are united with implants in situ, that the petitioner has
to undergo another surgery for removal of implants, that the
petitioner can continue his occupation with difficulty. In view of
admissions of PW.4, I am of the opinion that weightage given by
the doctor in respect of stability component is on the higher side
and if total disability of the petitioner is restricted to 45% to left
upper and lower limbs and to 15% to whole body, it will meet the
ends of justice. The said disability is physical as well as functional
resulting in loss of earning capacity to the extent of disability i.e.,
15%. He was advised to take follow up treatment. No follow up
records are produced. Looking to the injuries, it can be said that
he was on follow treatment and rest for about 3 ½ months. Total
laid up period comes to 4 months. The petitioner might have lost
income during the said period. He can continue his work with
difficulty. The difficulties may persist in future resulting in loss of
amenities. The petitioner has to undergo another operation. No
estimation is produced to corroborate evidence of PW.4 as to cost
of future surgery. However, the evidence of PW.4 as to said cost is
consistent with final bill of primary surgery. The petitioner might
have spent amount for nourishment, conveyance and attendant
charges apart from incurring medical expenses. He has produced
medical bills at Ex.P9 amounting to Rs.2,19,393/- which are
supported by prescriptions at Ex.P8. There is nothing on record to
SCCH-14 10 MVC No.4272, 4273 &
4274/2014
disbelieve the said bills. Bare denials were extracted from PW.1 as
to medical records.
12. Age of the petitioner is shown as 29 years in police
records and in medical records. His date of birth is mentioned as
01.02.1987 in copy of DL at Ex.P10. It means, the petitioner was
aged 32 years. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the
contents of Ex.P10. Hence, I hold that the petitioner was aged
32 years on the date of accident. Appropriate multiplier is 16. His
occupation is shown as painter in police records. The respondent
no.2 has impliedly admitted the occupation of the petitioner by
way of suggestions. Hence, I hold that the petitioner was/is a
painter. There is no corroboration to the evidence of PW.1 as to
income. In the absence of positive evidence, his income shall be
assessed notionally @ 8,000/- p.m., His annual income comes to
Rs.96,000/-. He has to live with disability of 15% which results in
loss of earning capacity and loss of amenities. Hence, the petitioner
is entitled for just and reasonable compensation as under:
1 Pain and sufferings Rs. 50,000/-
2 Medical expenses Rs.2,20,000/-
Nourishment, conveyance
3
and attendant charges
Rs. 20,000/-
4 Loss of income for 4 months Rs. 32,000/-
5 Loss of Future income
(96,000X16X15%) Rs.2,30,400/-
6 Loss of amenities Rs. 25,000/-
7 Disability Rs. 25,000/-
8 Future medical expenses Rs. 30,000/-
Total Rs. 6,32,400/-
Rounded to Rs.6,33,000/-.
SCCH-14 11 MVC No.4272, 4273 &
4274/2014
The petitioner is further entitled for interest @ 9% p.a., from
the date of petition till the date of payment. Liability aspect is
discussed separately. Hence, I answer the issue as above.
13. ISSUE NO.2 IN MVC No.4273/14: PW.2 and PW.4
have deposed and Ex.P11, 12, 27 and 28 are marked for the
petitioner Shridhar to prove the injuries caused to him, treatment
given to him and disability suffered by him. The said oral and
documentary evidence disclose that the petitioner has sustained
following injuries:
1. Fracture of Shaft of left femur
2. Fracture of left lateral malleoli
The petitioner was an inpatient for 18 days from 31.08.2014
to 17.09.2014 and underwent following procedures in Ashraya
Hospital:
IL nailing for left femur
Recent examination of the petitioner revealed as follows:
1. Complete union of all fractures,
2. Restriction of ranger of movement of left
ankle
3. Restriction of movement of left knee
4. Difficulty in carrying out activities of
daily living.
14. PW.4 Dr.Arjun S. Prakash has assessed the
permanent disability suffered by the petitioner @45% to left lower
limb and @15% to whole body. He has admitted that fractures are
united with implants in situ, that the petitioner has to undergo
another surgery for removal of implants. He has denied that the
petitioner can continue his occupation as driver, that instead of
SCCH-14 12 MVC No.4272, 4273 &
4274/2014
18 points, we have assessed 26 point for stability component.
However, he has admitted that there is no loss of tissue, that loss
of tissue is one of the contributing factors for loss of muscle
strength, that there is minimal restriction of movement in case of
the petitioner. He has denied that assessment made by him is
wrong and the petitioner is not suffering from permanent disability
of 45% to lower limb and 15% to whole body. In view of admissions
of PW.4, I am of the opinion that weightage given by the doctor in
respect of stability component is on the higher side and if total
disability of the petitioner is restricted to 42% to left lower limb
and to 14% to whole body, it will meet the ends of justice. The said
disability is physical as well as functional resulting in loss of
earning capacity to the extent of disability i.e., 14%. He was
advised to take follow up treatment. No follow up records are
produced. Looking to the injuries, it can be said that the petitioner
was on follow treatment and rest for about 3½ months. Total laid
up period comes to 4 months. The petitioner might have lost
income during the said period. He can continue his work with
difficulty. The difficulties of the petitioner may persist in future
resulting in loss of amenities. The petitioner has to undergo
another operation. No estimation is produced to corroborate
evidence of PW.4 as to cost of future surgery. However, the
evidence of PW.4 as to said cost is consistent with final bill of
primary surgery. The petitioner might have spent amount for
nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges apart from
incurring medical expenses. He has produced medical bills at
Ex.P15 amounting to Rs.2,29,889/- which are supported by
SCCH-14 13 MVC No.4272, 4273 &
4274/2014
prescriptions at Ex.P14. There is nothing on record to disbelieve
the said bills. Bare denials were extracted from PW.2 as to medical
records.
15. Age of the petitioner is shown as 24 years in police
records and in medical records. His date of birth is mentioned as
29.07.1990 in copy of DL at Ex.P13. It means, the petitioner was
aged 24 years as on the date of accident. There is nothing on
record to disbelieve the contents of Ex.P13. Hence, I hold that the
petitioner was aged 24 years on the date of accident. Appropriate
multiplier is 18. His occupation is shown as labourer in police
records. The petitioner has relied upon his driving license to prove
his occupation and he got marked copy of his licence as Ex.P13
which reveals that the petitioner was holding a licence to drive a
LMV, a LMV transport and PSV bus as on the date of accident.
There is no evidence and nothing is elicited from PW.2 to disbelieve
the contents of driving license. Hence, I hold that the petitioner
was/is a driver by profession. There is no corroboration to the
evidence of PW.2 as to income. In the absence of positive evidence,
his income shall be assessed notionally @ 8,000/- p.m., His
annual income comes to Rs.96,000/-. He has to live with disability
of 14% which results in loss of earning capacity and loss of
amenities. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for just and reasonable
compensation as under:
SCCH-14 14 MVC No.4272, 4273 &
4274/2014
1 Pain and sufferings Rs. 50,000/-
2 Medical expenses Rs.2,30,000/-
Nourishment, conveyance
3
and attendant charges
Rs. 20,000/-
4 Loss of income for 4 months Rs. 32,000/-
5 Loss of Future income
(96,000X18X14%) Rs.2,41,920/-
6 Loss of amenities Rs. 25,000/-
7 Disability Rs. 25,000/-
8 Future medical expenses Rs. 30,000/-
Total Rs.6,53,920/-
Rounded to Rs.6,54,000/-.
The petitioner is further entitled for interest @ 9% p.a., from
the date of petition till the date of payment. Liability aspect is
discussed separately. Hence, I answer the issue as above.
16. ISSUE NO.2 IN MVC No.4274/14: PW.3 and PW.4
have deposed and Ex.P16, 17, 31 and 32 are marked for the
petitioner Rangaswamy to prove the injuries caused to him,
treatment given to him and disability suffered by him. The said
oral and documentary evidence disclose that the petitioner has
sustained following injuries:
1. Fracture of both bones of left
forearm
2. Type II left Acromio-Clavicular
dislocation
The petitioner was an inpatient for 17 days from 31.08.2014
to 16.09.2014 and underwent following procedures in Ashraya
Hospital:
SCCH-14 15 MVC No.4272, 4273 &
4274/2014
ORIF with plate and screws for left forearm BB and
K wiring for left AC joint with ligament repair .
Recent examination of the petitioner revealed as follows:
1. Complete union of all fractures,
2. Restriction of ranger of movement of left
Elbow
3. Restriction of movement of left shoulder
4. Restriction of movement of left wrist,
5. Difficulty in carrying out activities of
daily living.
17. PW.4 Dr.Arjun S. Prakash has assessed the
permanent disability suffered by the petitioner @49% to left upper
limb and @16% to whole body. He has admitted that fractures are
united with implants in situ, that the petitioner has to undergo
another surgery for removal of implants, that the petitioner can
continue his occupation with little difficulty, that continuous
physiotherapy may reduce restriction of movement if any. In view
of admissions of PW.4, I am of the opinion that weightage given by
the doctor in respect of stability component is on the higher side.
Left clavical dislocation is relocated and there will be no disability
in that regard. I am of the opinion that if total disability of the
petitioner is restricted to 30% to left upper limb and to 10% to
whole body, it will meet the ends of justice. The said disability is
physical as well as functional resulting in loss of earning capacity
to the extent of disability i.e., 10%. He was advised to take follow
up treatment. No follow up records are produced. Looking to the
injuries, it can be said that he was on follow treatment and rest for
about 2½ months. Total laid up period comes to 3 months. The
petitioner might have lost income during the said period. He can
continue his work with difficulty. The difficulties may persist in
SCCH-14 16 MVC No.4272, 4273 &
4274/2014
future resulting in loss of amenities. The petitioner has to undergo
another operation. No estimation is produced to corroborate
evidence of PW.4 as to cost of future surgery. However, the
evidence of PW.4 as to said cost is consistent with final bill of
primary surgery. The petitioner might have spent amount for
nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges apart from
incurring medical expenses. He has produced medical bills at
Ex.P20 amounting to Rs.2,00,732/- which are supported by
prescriptions at Ex.P19. There is nothing on record to disbelieve
the said bills. Bare denials were extracted from PW.3 as to medical
records.
18. Age of the petitioner is shown as 30 years in police
records and in medical records. His year of birth is mentioned as
1979 in copy of Adhaar card at Ex.P18. It means, the petitioner
was aged 35 years as on the date of accident. There is nothing on
record to disbelieve the contents of Ex.P18. Hence, I hold that the
petitioner was aged 35 years on the date of accident. Appropriate
multiplier is 16. His occupation is shown as painter in police
records. The respondent no.2 has impliedly admitted the
occupation of the petitioner by way of suggestions. Hence, I hold
that the petitioner was/is a painter. There is no corroboration to
the evidence of PW.3 as to income. In the absence of positive
evidence, his income shall be assessed notionally @ 8,000/- p.m.,
His annual income comes to Rs.96,000/-. He has to live with
disability of 10% which results in loss of earning capacity and loss
of amenities. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for just and
reasonable compensation as under:
SCCH-14 17 MVC No.4272, 4273 &
4274/2014
1 Pain and sufferings Rs. 40,000/-
2 Medical expenses Rs.2,01,000/-
Nourishment, conveyance
3
and attendant charges
Rs. 15,000/-
4 Loss of income for 3 months Rs. 24,000/-
5 Loss of Future income
(96,000X16X10%) Rs.1,53,600/-
6 Loss of amenities Rs. 25,000/-
7 Disability Rs. 25,000/-
8 Future medical expenses Rs. 30,000/-
Total Rs. 5,13,600/-
Rounded to Rs.5,14,000/-.
The petitioner is further entitled for interest @ 9% p.a., from
the date of petition till the date of payment. Liability aspect is
discussed separately. Hence, I answer the issue as above.
LIABILITY:
19. The respondents are the owner and insurer of the
TATA Indica Car bearing No.KA-52-6408. The respondent no.1 has
not contested the matter, whereas the respondent no.2 has
contested matter. It is held above, that the accident has occurrence
due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of said car. There is
no evidence regarding contributory negligence on the part of the
petitioners. Hence, the respondents are jointly and severally liable
to pay compensation to the petitioners as stated above. The
respondent no.2 has contended that the respondent no.1 has
violated the terms and conditions of the policy and he is not liable
to indemnify him, but he has not produced any evidence to believe
that the respondent no.1 has violated the terms and conditions of
SCCH-14 18 MVC No.4272, 4273 &
4274/2014
the policy. It is an admitted fact that the policy issued by the
respondent no.2 in favour of respondent no.1 in respect of TATA
Indica Car bearing No.KA-52-6408 was in force on the date of
accident. Since, there is no evidence regarding violation of terms
and conditions of the policy, the defence of the respondent no.2
cannot be accepted. In view of policy, the respondent no.2 is liable
to deposit the compensation amount before the court.
Consequently, I answer the issues accordingly.
20. ISSUE No.3 IN ALL THE CASES : In view of above
discussion and findings, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petitions filed U/Sec. 166 of MV Act by the petitioner in MVC No.4272/2014, 4273/2014 and 4274/2014 are hereby partly allowed with cost.
The petitioner in MVC.No.4272/14 is entitled for a compensation of Rs.6,33,000/-, the petitioner in MVC No.4273/14 is entitled for a compensation of Rs.6,54,000/- and the petitioner in MVC No.4274/14 is entitled for a compensation of Rs.5,14,000/-. The petitioners are further entitled for interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.6,33,000/-, Rs.6,54,000/- and Rs.5,14,000/- with interest to the said SCCH-14 19 MVC No.4272, 4273 & 4274/2014 petitioners respectively. In view of the policy, the respondent no.2 is directed to deposit the said amount with interest before the court within one month from the date of order.
After deposit, Rs.1,50,000/- out of the compensation amount of the petitioners in MVC No.4272/14 and 4273/14 and Rs.1,00,000/- out of the compensation amount of the petitioner in MVC No.4274/14 shall be deposited in their respective names in any nationalized, scheduled or co-operative bank for a period of 3 years. Remaining amount and interest in all the case shall be released in their favour through account payee cheque with proper identification.
The original Judgment shall be kept in MVC No.4272/14 and copies of the same in MVC.No.4273/14 and 4274/14.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/- each. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer and corrected by me and pronounced in the open court, on this the 4th day of March 2016.) (Basavaraj Chengti) XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bangalore.
SCCH-14 20 MVC No.4272, 4273 &4274/2014 ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS: SCCH-14 PW.1 Sunil.B PW.2 Shridhar.M PW.3 Rangaswamy K.M PW.4 Dr.Arjun S Prakash Respondents : Nil.
Ex.P1 - Copy of FIR with complaint
E.xP2 - Copy of Spot Panchanama
Ex.P3 - Copy of Seizure Panchanama
Ex.P4 - Copy of IMV report
Ex.P5 - Copy of Charge Sheet
Ex.P6 - Copy of Wound Certificate
Ex.P7 - Discharge Summary
Ex.P8 - Prescriptions (13 in nos)
Ex.P9 - Medical bills (10 in nos amounting to
Rs.2,19,393/-)
Ex.P10 - Copy of Driving Licence
Ex.P11 - Copy of Wound Certificate
E.xP12 - Discharge Summary
Ex.P13 - Copy of Driving Licence
Ex.P14 - Prescriptions (17 in nos)
Ex.P15 - Medical bills (13 in nos amounting to
Rs.2,29,889/-)
Ex.P16 - Copy of Wound Certificate
E.xP17 - Discharge Summary
Ex.P18 - Copy of Adhaar Card
Ex.P19 - Prescriptions (11 in nos)
Ex.P20 - Medical bills (10 in nos amounting to
Rs.2,00,732/-)
Ex.P21 - Copy of Police intimation pertaining to Sunil
Ex.P22 - MLC Extract pertaining to Sunil
Ex.P23 - Case sheet pertaining to Sunil
Ex.P24 - X-rays (4 in nos) pertaining to Sunil
Ex.P25 - Copy of Police intimation pertaining to Sridhar
Ex.P26 - MLC Extract pertaining to Sridhar
SCCH-14 21 MVC No.4272, 4273 &
4274/2014
Ex.P27 - Case sheet pertaining to Sridhar
Ex.P28 - X-rays (4 in nos) pertaining to Sridhar
Ex.P29 - Copy of Police intimation pertaining to
Rangaswamy
Ex.P30 - MLC Extract pertaining to Rangaswamy
Ex.P31 - Case sheet pertaining to Rangaswamy
Ex.P32 - X-ray pertaining to Rangaswamy
Respondent's Nil
XVI ADDL.JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bangalore.
SCCH-14 22 MVC No.4272, 4273 &4274/2014 Dt.04.03.2016 P-NMP R1-KSG R2-KMR For Judgment Order pronounced in open court vide separate judgment.
ORDER The petitions filed U/Sec. 166 of MV Act by the petitioner in MVC No.4272/2014, 4273/2014 and 4274/2014 are hereby partly allowed with cost.
The petitioner in MVC.No.4272/14 is entitled for a compensation of Rs.6,33,000/-, the petitioner in MVC No.4273/14 is entitled for a compensation of Rs.6,54,000/- and the petitioner in MVC No.4274/14 is entitled for a compensation of Rs.5,14,000/-. The petitioners are further entitled for interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.6,33,000/-, Rs.6,54,000/- and Rs.5,14,000/- with interest to the said petitioners respectively. In view of the policy, the SCCH-14 23 MVC No.4272, 4273 & 4274/2014 respondent no.2 is directed to deposit the said amount with interest before the court within one month from the date of order.
After deposit, Rs.1,50,000/- out of the compensation amount of the petitioners in MVC No.4272/14 and 4273/14 and Rs.1,00,000/- out of the compensation amount of the petitioner in MVC No.4274/14 shall be deposited in their respective names in any nationalized, scheduled or co-operative bank for a period of 3 years. Remaining amount and interest in all the case shall be released in their favour through account payee cheque with proper identification.
The original Judgment shall be kept in MVC No.4272/14 and copies of the same in MVC.No.4273/14 and 4274/14.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/- each. Draw award accordingly.
XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bangalore.
SCCH-14 24 MVC No.4272, 4273 &4274/2014 AWARD SCCH NO.14 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA : BANGALORE CITY.
MVC No.4272/2014
Petitioner SUNIL.B
S/o Bojjegowda
Aged about 29 years,
R/at No.79/94,
Balaji Badavane,
Byadarahalli,
Bangalore-91.
(By pleader Sri NMP)
/.O
Respondents 1. SUDARSHANACHAR.P.H S/o Hanumantharappa No.6, 8th cross, 13th main, Mallasandra, Bagalgunte, Bangalore-57.
(RC Owner of the Car) (By pleader Sri KSG)
2. THE MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INS.,CO.LTD., No.28, East Wing, 5th floor, Centenary Building, M.G road, Bangalore-560 001.
(Insurer of the Car) (By pleader Sri KMR) SCCH-14 25 MVC No.4272, 4273 & 4274/2014 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. WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before Sri/Smt.Basavaraj Chengti, XVI Addl.Judge, Member, Court of Small Cause, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. ORDER The petitions filed U/Sec. 166 of MV Act by the petitioner in MVC No.4272/2014 is hereby partly allowed with cost.
The petitioner in MVC.No.4272/14 is entitled for a compensation of Rs.6,33,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.6,33,000/- with interest to the said petitioner. In view of the policy, the respondent no.2 is directed to deposit the said amount with interest before the court within one month from the date of order.
SCCH-14 26 MVC No.4272, 4273 &4274/2014 After deposit, Rs.1,50,000/- out of the compensation amount of the petitioners in MVC No.4272/14 shall be deposited in his name in any nationalized, scheduled or co-operative bank for a period of 3 years. Remaining amount and interest in all the case shall be released in his favour through account payee cheque with proper identification.
The original Judgment shall be kept in MVC No.4272/14 and copies of the same in MVC.No.4273/14 and 4274/14.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/- each. Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day of 2016.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: Bangalore SCCH-14 27 MVC No.4272, 4273 & 4274/2014 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 SCCH-14 28 MVC No.4272, 4273 & 4274/2014 AWARD SCCH NO.14 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA : BANGALORE CITY.
MVC No.4273/2014 Petitioner SRIDHAR.M S/o Muniraju Aged about 24 years, R/at No.86, Ist main, Kempegowda Nagara, Magadi main road, Bangalore-560 091.
(By pleader Sri NMP) /.O Respondents 1. SUDARSHANACHAR.P.H S/o Hanumantharappa No.6, 8th cross, 13th main, Mallasandra, Bagalgunte, Bangalore-57.
(RC Owner of the Car) (By pleader Sri KSG)
2. THE MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INS.,CO.LTD., No.28, East Wing, 5th floor, Centenary Building, M.G road, Bangalore-560 001.
(Insurer of the Car) (By pleader Sri KMR) SCCH-14 29 MVC No.4272, 4273 & 4274/2014 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. WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before Sri/Smt.Basavaraj Chengti, XVI Addl.Judge, Member, Court of Small Cause, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. ORDER The petitions filed U/Sec. 166 of MV Act by the petitioner in MVC No.4273/2014 is hereby partly allowed with cost.
The petitioner in MVC No.4273/14 is entitled for a compensation of Rs.6,54,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.6,54,000/- with interest to the said petitioner. In view of the policy, the respondent no.2 is directed to deposit the said amount with interest before the court within one month from the date of order.
SCCH-14 30 MVC No.4272, 4273 &4274/2014 After deposit, Rs.1,50,000/- out of the compensation amount of the petitioner in MVC No.4273/14 shall be deposited in his name in any nationalized, scheduled or co-operative bank for a period of 3 years. Remaining amount and interest in all the case shall be released in his favour through account payee cheque with proper identification.
The original Judgment shall be kept in MVC No.4272/14 and copies of the same in MVC.No.4273/14 and 4274/14.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/- each. Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day of 2016.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: Bangalore SCCH-14 31 MVC No.4272, 4273 & 4274/2014 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 SCCH-14 32 MVC No.4272, 4273 & 4274/2014 AWARD SCCH NO.14 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA : BANGALORE CITY.
MVC No.4274/2014 Petitioner RANGASWAMY K.M S/o Mariguddiah, Aged about 30 years, R/at No.16, 2nd stage, BEL Layout, Magadi main road, Bangalore-560 091.
(By pleader Sri NMP) /.O Respondents 1. SUDARSHANACHAR.P.H S/o Hanumantharappa No.6, 8th cross, 13th main, Mallasandra, Bagalgunte, Bangalore-57.
(RC Owner of the Car) (By pleader Sri KSG)
2. THE MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INS.,CO.LTD., No.28, East Wing, 5th floor, Centenary Building, M.G road, Bangalore-560 001.
(Insurer of the Car) (By pleader Sri KMR) WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the petitioner/s above named U/sec.166 of the M.V.C. Act, praying for SCCH-14 33 MVC No.4272, 4273 & 4274/2014 the compensation of Rs.
(Rupees ) for the injuries sustained by the petitioner/Death of in
a motor Accident by vehicle No. WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before Sri/Smt.Basavaraj Chengti, XVI Addl.Judge, Member, Court of Small Cause, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. ORDER The petitions filed U/Sec. 166 of MV Act by the petitioner in MVC No.4274/2014 is hereby partly allowed with cost.
The petitioner in MVC No.4274/14 is entitled for a compensation of Rs.5,14,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.5,14,000/- with interest to the said petitioner. In view of the policy, the respondent no.2 is directed to deposit the said amount with interest before the court within one month from the date of order.
SCCH-14 34 MVC No.4272, 4273 &4274/2014 After deposit, Rs.1,00,000/- out of the compensation amount of the petitioner in MVC No.4274/14 shall be deposited in his name in any nationalized, scheduled or co-operative bank for a period of 3 years. Remaining amount and interest in all the case shall be released in his favour through account payee cheque with proper identification.
The original Judgment shall be kept in MVC No.4272/14 and copies of the same in MVC.No.4273/14 and 4274/14.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/- each.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day of 2016.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: Bangalore SCCH-14 35 MVC No.4272, 4273 & 4274/2014 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