Bangalore District Court
In Saddling Liability On It vs No.1 Under Section 170 Of M.V. Act on 30 July, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL. SMALL CAUSES AND ADDL.
MACT., BANGALORE, (SCCH-7)
Dated this, the 30th day of July, 2016.
PRESENT : SMT.INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR,
B.Com.,LL.B.(Spl),L.L.M.,
IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM,
Court of Small Causes,
Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
M.V.C.No.3557/2015
Master Sandeep. M., ..... PETITIONER
Aged about 9 years,
S/o. Sri. Late Muniyappa.
Since, Petitioner being minor Rep. by his
mother as natural guardian
Susheela W/o. Late Muniyappa,
Residing at 1548, 9th Cross,
Subramanyanagar,
Near Vivekananda College,
Rajajinagar 1st Block,
Bangalore - 560 010.
Also at Madavara,
Tumkur Road,
Bangalore North,
Bangalore.
(By Sri. M. Manjunath, Adv.,)
V/s
1. Sri. Sathisha. S.G., ..... RESPONDENTS
Major,
S/o. Gopal Naik,
Residing at No.38/2,
106/1, 34th K.M., N.H-48,
Doddakarenahalli,
Nelamangala Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District - 562 123.
2 M.V.C.NO.3557/2015
(SCCH-7)
(Owner of Car bearing Registration
No.KA-42-M-2584)
2. M/s. Reliance General Insurance
Company Ltd.,
Office at 5th Floor,
Centenary Building,
East Wing, M.G. Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
Represented by its Manager,
(Policy No.1401542311009636,
Valid from 28.09.2014 to 27.09.2015)
(R1- Exparte)
(R2- By Sri. K. Chandrashekar, Adv.,)
JUDGMENT
The Petitioner has filed the present petition as against the Respondents No.1 and 2 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, praying to award compensation of Rupees 10,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a., from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization and costs.
2. The brief averments of the Petitioner's case are as follows;
a) On 15.07.2015 at about 5.00 p.m., he was standing along with his mother, near Kunigal Nelamangala Road, near Kubbekallamma Temple, at that time, the driver of Car bearing Registration No.KA-42-M-2584 drove his Car, at high speed, in rash and negligent manner, so as to endangering human life and property and dashed as against his Scooter. As a result, he fell 3 M.V.C.NO.3557/2015 (SCCH-7) down on the foot path and sustained grievous injuries all over his body.
b) Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Harsha Hospital, wherein, first-aid treatment was received and further, he was shifted to M.S. Ramaiah Hospital. In the said Hospital, scanning was done and it was diagnosed that, he had sustained head injury and he was treated as an inpatient and during the course of his admission, he was kept in ICU as his condition was very critical and later, he was discharged with an advise to take regular follow-up treatment.
c) He has spent around about Rupees 2,00,000/- towards treatment, medicines, conveyances, food and nourishment and other incidental expenses and he is still under treatment and bedridden huge medical expenses. He is suffering from severe pain all over the body. The injuries are permanent in nature and caused permanent disability. He has to suffer with disability throughout his life.
d) The accident caused due to the sole rash and negligent driving of the Car bearing Registration No.KA-42-M-2584 by its driver. The jurisdictional Nelamangala Rural Police have registered a case in Crime No.286/2015 in respect of the said accident as against the driver of the Car.
e) The Respondent No.1 is the R.C. Owner of the Car bearing Registration No.KA-42-M-2584 and second Respondent is the insurer of the vehicle in question and hence, both the Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to him under all heads. Hence, this petition.
4 M.V.C.NO.3557/2015(SCCH-7)
3. Though the notice was duly served on the Respondent No.1, he was remained absent and hence, he is placed as exparte on 14.10.2015.
4. In response to the notice, the Respondent No.2 has appeared before this Tribunal through its Learned Counsel. But, initially, inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the Respondent No.2 had not filed the written statement. Later, as per the Order dated 03.02.2016 passed on I.A.No.I, the written statement filed by the Respondent No.2 is taken on file.
5. The Respondent No.2 inter-alia denying the entire case of the Petitioner, has further contended as follows;
a) The petition filed by the Petitioner is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case.
b) If it is proved that, there is a policy, which is in force on the time of accident, then, it will be subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, verification of engine and chassis number, the valid and effective driving licence of the rider of the vehicle, valid registration certificate, permit, fitness certificate and also subject to the limits of the liability and grounds for defending the claim as enshrined in Section 147 and Section 149 (2) of M.V. Act, 1988.
c) The owner/Respondent No.1 is duty bound under Section 134(c) of the M.V. Act, 1988, to inform and furnish the particulars as envisaged in the Section in connection with the alleged accident to it and further the owner/Respondent No.1 is required to co-operate with it in contesting the claim as per the 5 M.V.C.NO.3557/2015 (SCCH-7) terms and conditions of the policy, if any, issued to him and in the present case, if the liability is fastened upon the Respondent No.1, they are debarred from seeking indemnification from the Respondent No.1, due to the lapses on their part to discharge the statutory and contractual obligations.
d) There is a dereliction of statutory duty on the part of the Officer-in-charge of the jurisdictional Police in not forwarding the copy of the report neither to it nor to this Hon'ble Tribunal within 30 days from the date of the recording information regarding alleged accident as contemplated under Section 158(6) of the M.V. Act, 1988 and thus, for taking necessary action, such erred Police Officer is to be summoned by the Hon'ble Tribunal by exercising the powers conferred upon it by virtue of Rules 237 and 248 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.
e) In the course of claim, if the owner of the vehicle is placed exparte or fails to contest the claim or colluded with the claimants in saddling liability on it, it may be permitted to contest the claim on all or any of the grounds that are available to the Respondent No.1 under Section 170 of M.V. Act, 1988, without prejudice to the provisions contained in Section 149(2) of the M.V. Act, 1988.
f) It reserves the right to file additional objections, if necessary, in the changed facts and circumstance of the case or if any development/new things found by the Investigator during investigation or by it during the course of the proceeding before this Court.
6 M.V.C.NO.3557/2015(SCCH-7)
g) The Petitioner claim has no legal basis and he is not entitled for any compensation as claimed with the interest and cost. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition with exemplary costs.
6. Based on the above said pleadings, I have framed the following Issues;
ISSUES
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-52-M-2584 by its driver and in the said accident, he sustained injuries?
2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
3. What Order?
7. In order to prove his case, the Petitioner has examined his mother, who is his natural guardian, as P.W.1 by filing an affidavit as her examination-in-chief and has placed reliance upon Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12. On the other hand, the Respondent No.2 has not adduced any evidence on its behalf.
8. Heard the arguments.
9. My answers to the above said Issues are as follows;
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative,
7 M.V.C.NO.3557/2015
(SCCH-7)
The Petitioner is
entitled for compensation
of Rupees 2,06,209/- with
interest at the rate of 8%
p.a. (excluding future
medical expenses of
Rupees 10,000/-) from the
date of the petition till the
date of payment, from the
Respondent No.2.
Issue No.3 : As per the final Order,
for the following;
REASONS
10. ISSUE NO.1 :- The P.W.1, who is the mother as well
as guardian of the Petitioner has stated in her examination-in- chief that, on 15.07.2015 at about 5.00 p.m., her son and their family members had been to Temple and they were standing on the foot path on the said road, at that time, the driver of the Car bearing Registration No.KA-42-M-2584 drove it in a high speed, reckless, rash and negligent manner, so has to endangering human life and dashed as against his son, due to which, her son fell down and sustained grievous cerebral head injuries. She has further stated that, immediately after the accident, she was shifted her son to Harsha Hospital, wherein, first-aid treatment was given to him and further, he was shifted to M.S. Ramaiah Hospital and the duty Doctors examined him, took X-rays and scanning and it was diagnosed that, her son had suffered the cerebral edema and head injury. She has further stated that, in the said Hospital, her son was treated as an inpatient from16.07.2015 to 25.07.2015 and during the course of admission, he was treated in ICU for the head injury. He has further stated that, the accident occurred due 8 M.V.C.NO.3557/2015 (SCCH-7) to the sole rash and negligent driving by the driver of Innova Car bearing Registration No.KA-42-M-2584 and in this regard, the jurisdictional Police have registered a case as against the driver of the said vehicle.
11. No doubt, the P.W.1 in her cross-examination has clearly stated that, at the time of accident, she was along with her son. Form the said evidence, it appears that, though the P.W.1, who is a mother of the Petitioner, was along with the Petitioner at the time of accident, she did not care to look after her son before the accident occurred to him. Further, the Petitioner has not produced the spot hand sketch to show the things existing on the accidental spot.
12. But, based on the said evidence elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 during the course of cross-examination by the Respondent No.2 as well as non-production of the spot hand sketch by the Petitioner in the present case, it cannot be thrown away the above said oral evidence of P.W.1, which has been stated by her in her examination-in-chief and it cannot be believed that, there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending Innova Car bearing Registration No.KA-42-M-2584 and the entire negligence is on the part of the Petitioner and also his mother in taking care before causing accident, as, to corroborate the oral version of P.W.1, the Petitioner has produced Ex.P.1 FIR, Ex.P.2 Complaint, Ex.P.3 Spot Panchanama, Ex.P.4 MVI Report, Ex.P.5 Wound Certificate, Ex.P.6 Charge Sheet, Ex.P.7 Discharge Summary and Ex.P.10 Letter dated 17.07.2015, which clearly disclosed that, due to very high speed, rash and negligent manner of driving of the offending Innova Car bearing Registration No.KA-
9 M.V.C.NO.3557/2015(SCCH-7) 42-M-2584 by its driver itself, the said road traffic accident was taken place, which dashed to the Petitioner, when he was standing on the footpath and due to the said impact, he had sustained 3 grievous injuries and 3 simple injuries and on 15.07.2015 at about 5.00 p.m., itself, he was admitted in M.S. Ramaiah Hospital and he took treatment to the said accidental injuries by admitting as an inpatient from 16.07.2015 to 25.07.2015, i.e., for 10 days, which is clear from the following discussion. Further more, the P.W.1 in her cross-examination has clearly stated that, immediately after the accident, her son was shifted to Nelamangala Hospital and thereafter, he was shifted to M.S. Ramaiah Hospital. Further, the P.W.1 has clearly stated in her cross-examination that, on the same day itself, the Police came to the Hospital and enquired about the accident. Further, the P.W.1 in her cross-examination has clearly denied the suggestions put to her by the Respondent No.2 during the course of cross- examination that, she has not seen the accident and since, she was along with her son at the time of accident, she could have avoided the said alleged accident and in the alleged accident, her son had only sustained simple injuries and her son had not taken any treatment by admitting as an inpatient at M.S. Ramaiah Hospital. From this, it appears that, though the P.W.1 has been cross-examined by the Respondent No.2, nothing has been elicited from her mouth to consider its defence. More so, though the Respondent No.2 has filed the written statement to contest the case of the Petitioner, it has not adduced any evidence on its behalf to consider its specific defence. Furthermore, though the notice was duly served on the Respondent No.1, who was a R.C. Owner of the offending Innova Car bearing Registration No.KA-42- M-2584 at the time of accident, he was remained absent and 10 M.V.C.NO.3557/2015 (SCCH-7) hence, he is placed as exparte. From this, it appears that, the Respondents No.1 and 2 have indirectly admitted the entire case made out by the Petitioner in the present petition as against them in respect of the accident in question.
13. The contents of Ex.P.1 FIR and Ex.P.2 Complaint disclosed that, the mother of the Petitioner, i.e., the P.W.1, has lodged Ex.P.2 Complaint before the Nelamangala Rural Police as against the driver of the offending Innova Car bearing Registration No.KA-42-M-2584 by alleging that, on 15.07.2015 at about 5.00 P.M., when she and her son, i.e., the Petitioner and her relatives were standing on the footpath of Kunigal to Nelamangala Road, at that time, the offending Silver Innova Car bearing Registration No.KA-42-M-2584 came from Lyank Toll with very high speed, rash and negligent manner and dashed to them, who were standing on the left side of the footpath and out of them, her son also hit by the said offending Toyota Car and due to which, her son fell down on the footpath and had sustained grievous injuries on his head, left ear, right hand and neck and immediately, he was shifted to Nelamangala Harsha Hospital through unknown vehicle, wherein, first-aid treatment was given and thereafter, he was shifted to M.S. Ramaiah Hospital and since nobody was their to look after her son, she lodged a complaint on the next day and the entire negligence is on the part of the driver of the offending Innova Car bearing Registration No.KA-42-M-2584 and as such, she prayed to take necessary legal action as against the driver of the offending Innova Car and based on the said Ex.P.2 Complaint, the said Police have registered a criminal case as against the driver of the offending Innova Car for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 337 of IPC under Crime No.286/2015. It is 11 M.V.C.NO.3557/2015 (SCCH-7) also clear from the contents of Ex.P.1 FIR and Ex.P.2 Complaint that, there is no inordinate delay as such in lodging Ex.P.2 Complaint by the eye witness of the said road traffic accident, which caused to the Petitioner.
14. The contents of Ex.P.3 Spot Panchanama and Ex.P.4 MVI Report further clearly disclosed that, when the Petitioner was standing on the left side of the footpath along with his mother and others, the offending Innova Car bearing Registration No.KA-42- M-2584 came with very high speed, rash and negligent manner and dashed to the Petitioner and due to which, the Petitioner fell down on the footpath and had sustained grievous injuries on his head, left ear, left hand and neck and the offending Innova Car bearing Registration No.KA-42-M-2584 as well as its driver are very much involved in the said road traffic accident. Further, the damages caused to the said offending Innova Car bearing Registration No.KA-42-M-2584 are clearly mentioned in Ex.P.4 MVI Report, which clearly disclosed about the terrific impact of the said road traffic accident. It is also clearly mentioned in Ex.P.4 MVI Report that, the said accident was not occurred due to any mechanical defects of the said offending Car.
15. The contents of Ex.P.5 Wound Certificate clearly disclosed that, the Petitioner came to M.S. Ramaiah Hospital with certain injuries due to road traffic accident said to have caused on 15.07.2015 at 5.00 p.m., at Nelamangala Highway, Bangalore and on examination, it is found that, the Petitioner had sustained the injuries, i.e., abrasion the upper lip, 0.5 x 3 x 2 cm CLF over the scalp, abression over the nose and left side the face, CDH over the left EAC, swelling over the left elbow joint and C.T. brain - head 12 M.V.C.NO.3557/2015 (SCCH-7) injury cerebral edema, i.e., three grievous injuries and three simple injuries and he was admitted in the said Hospital on 15.07.2015 at 8.00 p.m., to take treatment to the said accidental injuries.
16. The contents of Ex.P.7 Discharge Summary and Ex.P.10 Letter dated 17.07.2015 issued by M.S. Ramaiah Hospital further clearly disclosed that, during the course of the treatment, it is diagnosed that, cerebral edema, which caused to the Petitioner due to the road traffic accident, which was taken place on 15.07.2015 at 6.00 p.m., and by admitting as an inpatient from 16.07.2015 to 25.07.2015, i.e., for 10 days, he took treatment to the said accidental injuries at M.S. Ramaiah Hospital.
17. From the above said medical evidence, it is clearly proved that, in the said road traffic accident, the Petitioner had sustained three grievous injuries and three simple injuries, i.e., particularly head injury and by admitting as an inpatient, totally for 10 days, he took treatment to the said accidental injuries at M.S. Ramaiah Hospital.
18. The contents of Ex.P.6 Charge Sheet further clearly disclosed that, since during the course of investigation, it is found that, due to high speed, rash and negligent manner of driving of the offending Innova Car bearing Registration No.KA-42-M-2584 by its driver itself, the road traffic accident was taken place on 15.07.2015 at about 5.00 P.M. in front of Gobekallamma Temple, N.H.48 Road, Kunigal to Nelamangala Road, which dashed to the Petitioner, when he was waiting for Bus by the side of the footpath 13 M.V.C.NO.3557/2015 (SCCH-7) on Kunigal to Nelamangala N.H.48 Road and due to which, the Petitioner had sustained severe grievous injuries and as such, after thorough investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed a charge sheet as against the driver of the offending Innova Car for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 338 of IPC.
19. More so, at the time of accident, the Petitioner was a minor of 10 years old. Therefore, there is no negligence on the part of the Petitioner in the commission of the said road traffic accident.
20. From the above said material evidence, both oral and documentary, it is clearly proved that, the entire negligence is on the part of the driver of the offending Innova Car bearing Registration No.KA-42-M-2584 in the commission of the said road traffic accident and the said offending Innova Car bearing Registration No.KA-42-M-2584 as well as its driver are very much involved in the said road traffic accident, wherein, the Petitioner had sustained three grievous injuries and three simple injuries. Accordingly, I answered Issue No.1 in the Affirmative.
21. ISSUE NO.2 :- The Petitioner has produced Ex.P.8 Birth Certificate relating to him, which disclosed that, his date of birth is on 06.03.2006. The date of accident is on 15.07.2015. From the said dates, it appears that, at the time of accident, the Petitioner was 10 years old. Hence, the age of the Petitioner is considered as 10 years at the time of accident.
22. The P.W.1 has stated that, as on the date of accident, her son was studying in SSK Convent. She has further stated in her cross-examination that, at the time of accident, her son was 14 M.V.C.NO.3557/2015 (SCCH-7) studying in 3rd Standard and now her son is studying in 4th Standard. No doubt, the Petitioner has not produced any authenticated documents to show that, at the time of accident, he was studying in 3rd Standard, he was a student. But, it no way affect to consider the status of the Petitioner at the time of accident, as, at the time of accident, the Petitioner was 10 year old and the P.W.1, who is a mother of the Petitioner, has clearly stated in her evidence that, at the time of accident, her son was studying in 3rd Standard. From the said material evidence, it made crystal clear that, at the time of accident, the Petitioner was a student of 3rd Standard.
23. The P.W.1 has stated that, during the course of admission, her son was treated in ICU for the head injury as his condition was very critical and other necessary treatment was given to him and discharged with an advise to take follow-up treatment. She has further stated that, she is taking her son regularly for follow-up treatment as advised by Doctors till today by visiting once in a week. She has further stated in her cross- examination that, after discharge from the Hospital, her son had taken follow-up treatment once in 3 days in one month. In this regard, the Petitioner has not produced any medical documents. Admittedly, the Petitioner has not produced the outpatient medical records to show that, even after discharge from the Hospital, he has taken regular follow-up treatment as per the advise of the treated Doctor. But, it no way affect to consider the case of the Petitioner, as, based on Ex.P.5 Wound Certificate, Ex.P.7 Discharge Summary and Ex.P.10 Letter, this Tribunal has already observed and come to the conclusion that, in the said road traffic accident, the Petitioner had sustained abrasion on upper 15 M.V.C.NO.3557/2015 (SCCH-7) lip, 0.5 x 3 x 2 cm CLF over the scalp, abrasion over the nose and left side the face, CDH over the left EAC, swelling over the left elbow joint and C.T. brain - head injury cerebral edema, i.e., three grievous injuries and three simple injuries and during the course of treatment, it is diagnosed cerebral edema, i.e., head injury and by admitting as an inpatient from 16.07.2015 to 25.07.2015, i.e., for 10 days, he took treatment to the said accidental injuries at M.S. Ramaiah Hospital. Further, at the time of accident, the Petitioner was 10 years old. By considering the nature of injuries, line of treatment, length of treatment and age of the Petitioner at the time of accident, it clearly goes to show that, even after discharge from the Hospital, the Petitioner was very much required follow-up treatment to the said accidental injuries as per the advise of the treated Doctors. Therefore, the said evidence of P.W.1 in respect of the line of treatment given to the Petitioner to the said accidental injuries as well as follow-up treatment taken by the Petitioner even after discharge from the said Hospital, can very well be believed and accept.
24. The P.W.1 has stated that, due to the injuries sustained by her son in the said accident, he was not able to attend his classes for a period of 6 months. She has further stated that, before the accident, her son was hale and healthy and doing his daily work efficiently and due to the said accident and due to the injuries sustained by him, he is undergoing deep mental shock, untold hardship misery, he is not able to sleep comfortably, he gets headache and giddiness, memory power has been weakened, he gets pain in injured parts, he is not active as he was prior to the accident and now, he is suffering from permanent 16 M.V.C.NO.3557/2015 (SCCH-7) disability and the said disabilities have affected his present and future life.
25. No doubt, based on the contents of Ex.P.5 Wound Certificate, Ex.P.7 Discharge Summary and Ex.P.10 Letter dated 17.07.2015, this Tribunal has already observed and come to the conclusion that, the Petitioner had sustained abrasion the upper lip, 0.5 x 3 x 2 cm CLF over the scalp, abrasion over the nose and left side the face, CDH over the left EAC, swelling over the left elbow joint and C.T. brain - head injury cerebral edema, i.e., three grievous injuries and three simple injuries.
26. But, based on the said oral version of P.W.1 as well as the contents of the said medical documents and observations made thereon, it cannot be believed and accept that, due to the said accidental injuries, the Petitioner is suffering from permanent physical and functional disability, as, the Petitioner has not examined the treated Doctor or the Doctor, who is a competent to assess the disability of the Petitioner and even the Petitioner has not produced the disability certificate issued by the competent Doctor or the treated Doctor. Furthermore, except the oral version of P.W.1, the Petitioner has not produced any authenticated documents issued by his School Authority to show that, due to the said accidental injuries itself, he is not able to concentrate his studies and he is not in active as earlier in his education and curricular activities. Further, the P.W.1 has clearly stated in her cross-examination that, at the time of accident, her son was studying in 3rd Standard and now, he is studying in 4th Standard. From this evidence, it is made crystal clear that, due to the said accidental injuries, the Petitioner has not lost his academic year 17 M.V.C.NO.3557/2015 (SCCH-7) and he continued his education without any loss. Furthermore, at the time of accident, the Petitioner was 10 years old, which is tender age and as such, the chances of recovery are more. Therefore, the Petitioner is not entitled for compensation under the heads of loss of future income and loss of amenities of life, which are arising out of the permanent physical and functional disability, which caused due to the said accidental injuries.
27. However, in the said road traffic accident, the Petitioner had sustained three grievous injuries and three simple injuries and by admitting as an inpatient, totally for 10 days, he took treatment to the said accidental injuries, the Petitioner is entitled for the compensation under the following heads.
28. As per Ex.P.5 Wound Certificate, the Petitioner had sustained 3 grievous injuries and 3 simple injuries. The Petitioner was in the Hospital as an inpatient from 16.07.2015 to 25.07.2015, i.e., for 10 days as per Ex.P.7 Discharge Summary. As the Petitioner was 10 years old as on the date of accident, due to the said injuries, he could have been definitely suffered a lot of pain and agony, during the course of treatment. Considering the said aspects, it is just, proper and necessary to award a sum of Rupees 75,000/- towards pain and suffering.
29. Due to the accidental injuries, the Petitioner could not be in a position to attend his school at least for two months. Hence, it is just, proper and necessary to award a sum of Rupees 20,000/- towards loss of education.
30. The P.W.1 has stated that, he is taking his son regularly for follow-up treatment as advised by Doctors till today 18 M.V.C.NO.3557/2015 (SCCH-7) by visiting once in a week by engaging auto paying Rupees 200/- per trip to visit Hospital for taking treatment till today and he has spent around about Rupees 2,00,000/- towards his son's treatment, medicines, conveyance, nourishment and other incidental expenses. In this regard, the P.W.1 has produced Ex.P.9 Estimation of Hospital Bill dated 17.07.2015, which is amounting of Rupees 1,33,000/- and Ex.P.11 Medical Bills 49 in numbers, which is amounting of Rupees 85,208-57 and Ex.P.12 Medical Prescriptions 7 in numbers. It is pertinent to note here that, Ex.P.9 is only an estimation of Hospital bill and it is not a receipt or bill in respect of payment made. In this regard, the P.W.1 in his cross-examination has clearly admitted that, Ex.P.9 is only an estimation of Hospital bill. Further, the approximate amount is only shown in Ex.P.9. Hence, the amount covered under Ex.P.9 Hospital Bill cannot be taken into for consideration and as such, it is discarded. The Petitioner has taken treatment at M.S. Ramaiah Hospital, wherein, he was taken treatment as an inpatient from 16.07.2015 to 25.07.2015, i.e., for 10 days. Considering the nature of the injuries and line of treatment given to the Petitioner and length of treatment, the possibility of spending the said amount for the medicines covered under Ex.P.11 Medical Bills can not be doubted. Therefore, it is necessary to award the said actual medical expenses of Rupees 85,208-57, which is rounded off Rupees 85,209/- to the Petitioner.
31. The P.W.1 has not stated anything about future medical assistance to the Petitioner in future and its expenses. But, as the Petitioner was 10 years old at the time of accident and he had sustained head injury, this Tribunal feels that, it is just, 19 M.V.C.NO.3557/2015 (SCCH-7) proper and necessary to award a sum of Rupees 10,000/- towards future medical expenses to the Petitioner.
32. By considering the age of the Petitioner, nature of injuries, line of treatment and period of treatment in the Hospital by admitting as an inpatient for 10 days, this Tribunal feels that, it is just, proper and necessary to award a sum of Rupees 5,000/- towards attendant charges, Rupees 5,000/- towards conveyance expenses and Rupees 6,000/- towards food, nourishment and diet, etc.,
33. In this way, the Petitioner is entitled for the following amount of compensation:-
Sl.No. Compensation heads Compensation amount
1. Pain and sufferings Rs. 75,000-00
2. Loss of education Rs. 20,000-00
3. Medical expenses Rs. 85,209-00
4. Future medical expenses Rs. 10,000-00
5. Attendant Charges Rs. 5,000-00
6. Conveyance Rs. 5,000-00
7. Food, Nourishment & Rs. 6,000-00 Diet charges TOTAL Rs. 2,06,209-00
34. In all, the Petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rupees 2,06,209/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the above said sum (excluding future medical expenses of Rupees 10,000/-) from the date of petition till payment.
35. While answering Issue No.1, this Tribunal has already come to the conclusion that, the offending Innova Car bearing 20 M.V.C.NO.3557/2015 (SCCH-7) Registration No.KA-42-M-2584 as well as its driver are very much involved in the said road traffic accident, wherein, the Petitioner had sustained three grievous injuries and three simple injuries. The Petitioner in the cause title of the petition has clearly mentioned that, the Respondent No.1 is a R.C. Owner and the Respondent No.2 is an insurer of the offending Innova Car bearing Registration No.KA-42-M-2584 and its Policy number 1401542311009636 and valid from 28.09.2014 to 27.09.2015. The Respondent No.2 in its written statement has taken the contentions that, it has not admitted the issuance of Insurance Policy in respect of the vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-52-M- 2584 and if it is proved that, there is a policy, which is in force on the time of accident, then it will be subject to the terms and condition of the policy, verification of engine and chassis number, the valid and effective driving licence of the rider of the vehicle, valid registration certificate, permit, fitness certificate and also subject to the limits of the liability and grounds for defending the claim as enshrined in Section 147 and Section 149(2) of M.V. Act, 1988. From this, it appears that, the Respondent No.2 has denied the very issuance of the Insurance Policy to the offending Innova Car bearing Registration No.KA-42-M-2584, which covers the date of accident. But, to prove the same, the Respondent No.2 has not adduced any evidence on its behalf. From this, it is made crystal clear that, the Respondent No.2 has not proved the said contentions taken by it in its written statement. But, form the said materials placed by the Petitioner before this tribunal, it is made crystal clear that, at the time of accident, the Respondent No.1 was a R.C. Owner and the Respondent No.2 was an Insurer of the offending Innova Car bearing Registration No.KA-42-M-2584 and its Insurance Policy was valid, which covers the date of accident.
21 M.V.C.NO.3557/2015(SCCH-7) To deny or discard the same, nothing is available on record on behalf of the Respondents No.1 and 2, as, though the notice was duly served to him, he was remained absent and hence, he is placed as exparte and the Respondent No.2 though filed the written statement to contest the case of the Petitioner, it has not adduced any evidence on its behalf to consider its specific defence. Further, there is no allegation leveled by the Investigation Officer as against the driver of the offending Innova Car in Ex.P.6 Charge Sheet that, at the time of accident, he was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive such class of offending Innova Car. The violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy by the Respondent No.1 is not proved by the Respondent No.2. Under such circumstances, the Respondent No.1 being the R.C. Owner and the Respondent No.2 being the Insurer of the offending Innova Car bearing Registration No.KA-42-M-2584, are jointly and severally liable to pay the above said compensation and interest to the Petitioner. Since the Respondent No.2 is an insurer, it shall indemnify the Respondent No.1. Hence, Issue No.2 is answered accordingly.
36. ISSUE NO.3 :- For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following, ORDER The petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is hereby partly allowed with costs.
22 M.V.C.NO.3557/2015(SCCH-7) The Petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rupees 2,06,209/-
with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. (excluding future medical expenses of Rupees 10,000/-) from the date of the petition till the date of payment, from the Respondent No.2.
The Respondent No.2 shall deposit the said compensation and interest in this Tribunal, within one month from the date of this Order.
In the event of deposit of compensation and interest, 50% shall be released in the name of the guardian of the Petitioner through account payee cheque, on proper identification.
Remaining 50% shall be kept in FD in the name of the Petitioner, in any nationalized Bank of the choice of his guardian, till he attains the age of majority.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rupees 1,000/-.
23 M.V.C.NO.3557/2015(SCCH-7) Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then, pronounced by me in the open Court on this, the 30th day of July, 2016.) (INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR) IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE PETITIONER :-
P.W.1 : Smt. Susheela
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED BY THE PETITIONER :-
Ex.P.1 : True copy of FIR
Ex.P.2 : True copy of Complaint
Ex.P.3 : True copy of Spot Panchanama
Ex.P.4 : True copy of MVI Report
Ex.P.5 : True copy of Wound Certificate
Ex.P.6 : True copy of Charge Sheet
Ex.P.7 : Discharge Summary
Ex.P.8 : Birth Certificate relating to
Sandeep. M.
Ex.P.9 : Estimation of Hospital Bill dated
17.07.2015
Ex.P.10 : Letter dated 17.07.2015
Ex.P.11 : Medical Bills (49 in nos.)
Ex.P.12 : Medical Prescriptions (7 in nos.)
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE RESPONDENTS :-
-NIL-24 M.V.C.NO.3557/2015
(SCCH-7)
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED BY THE RESPONDENTS :-
-NIL-
(INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR) IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.