Bangalore District Court
Renuka.M vs Iffco-Tokio Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd on 29 February, 2016
BEFORE THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, AT BANGALORE (SCCH-16)
PRESENT: SRI. SATISH J.BALI,
B.Com., LL.M.,
X Addl.Judge, Court of Small Causes
(SCCH-16) Bangalore.
DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016.
MVC.Nos.6519/2013 ,6520/13, 6522/13,
6524/13, 6525/13, 6526/13, 6527/13 and
6521/13.
*****
PARTIES TO MVC No.6519/13:
PETITIONER: 1 Renuka.M.
W/o.late.Manjunath.C.
Aged about 50 years
2 M.Sandeep
S/o. late.Manjunath.C.
Aged about 30years,
R/at. Halasuru, Shivajinagar
Bangalore-42.
PARTIES TO MVC No.6520/13:
PETITIONER: Smt.Renuka.M.
W/o.Late.Manjunath
Aged about 50years
R/o.No.26/1,
Kensington Opposite
Ulsoor Telephone Exchange
Bangalore-42
2 MVC.6519/13 ,6520/13,6522/13,6524
To 6527/13 &6521/13.
SCH-16
PARTIES TO MVC No.6522/13:
PETITIONER: S.Nagaraju
S/o.Late.Sakrappa
Aged about 54 years
Bangalore University, Gnanganga
Nagar, Bangalore-56.
PARTIES TO MVC No.6524/13:
PETITIONER Smt.Suvarna
W/o.Shiva Shankar
Aged about 40years
Present address
R/o. No.26/1,
Kensington Road
Halasuru, Shivajinagar
Bangalore-42.
PARTIES TO MVC No.6525/13:
PETITIONER: Pradeep Kumar
S/o.Ravi Kumar
Aged about 28 years,
R/at. No.136/1, 10th cross,
Sanjeevini Nagar,
Moodalapalya, Bangalore-72.
PARTIES TO MVC No.6526/13:
PETITIONER Smt.Latha
w/o.Ravi Kumar
Aged about 40 years,
R/at. No.136/1, 10th cross,
Sanjeevini Nagar,
Moodalapalya, Bangalore-72.
PARTIES TO MVC No.6527/13:
PETITIONER: Smt.Mamatha
W/o.Pradeep Kumar.R
Aged about 20 years,
3 MVC.6519/13 ,6520/13,6522/13,6524
To 6527/13 &6521/13.
SCH-16
No.136/1, 10th cross,
Sanjeevininagar,
Moodalapalya, Bangalore-72.
PARTIES TO MVC No.6521/13:
PETITIONER: Smt.Kamala @ Kamalamma
W/o.Jauaramu
Aged about 55 years,
R/at. No.186, 2nd Main,
3rd Cross, Lavakusha Nagar
Laggere, Bangalore-58.
V/s.
RESPONDENTS 1. IFFCO-TOKIO Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd.,
IN ALL THE CASES: No.141, Sri Shanti Towers, 4th Floor,
3rd Main, East NGEF Layout,
Kasturi Nagar, Bangalore-43.
Policy No.1-11RTWZU P400 Policy-
80828101 Valid from 3-8-12 to 2-8-13.
2 Mahesh.Y.
S/o.Yellappa
No.1, 1st Main Road, Shakthi
Garden, 1st Stage,
Kalyan Nagar, Nagarabhavi Road,
Bangalore.
(RC Owner of Maxi cab bearing
No.KA.03/D.793)
******
COMMON JUDGMENT
These petitions were filed by the above named
petitioners under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1989,
4 MVC.6519/13 ,6520/13,6522/13,6524
To 6527/13 &6521/13.
SCH-16
claiming compensation on account of death and injuries
sustained by them in a road traffic accident. All the petitions
aroused out of the same accident and hence, they are clubbed
together and common evidence was recorded, in order to
avoid repetition.
2. The case of the petitioners, as set-out in the
petitions of both the petition is as follows:
That the deceased Manjunath and other petitioners on
7-4-2013 were traveling to Dharmastala in Maxi Cab Tempo
Traveler bearing No.KA.03/D.793 from Bangalore. When they
reached Bangalore-Mangalore NH-48 road, at about 1.00a.m.,
near property of Kannaghatta Raju in between Agachahalli
and Devi halli, the driver of said Maxi Cab Tempo Traveler
bearing No.KA.03/D.793 drove the same in a rash and
negligent manner with high speed and in order to give way to
the KSRTC bus, he took his vehicle to the extreme left side of
the road and lost control over the vehicle and the maxi cab
fell down from the bridge to the ground. As a result, all the
petitioners who were in the Maxi cab fell down and death of
Manjunath took place and other passengers/petitioners
sustained grievous injuries.
5 MVC.6519/13 ,6520/13,6522/13,6524
To 6527/13 &6521/13.
SCH-16
3. It is stated that the deceased suffered bleeding
injuries to left hand, left leg, back, chest and other parts of
the body. He was immediately after the accident shifted to
Achichunchanagiri hospital and then shifted to St.Philomena
hospital. Inspite of best treatment, deceased- Manjunath
succumbed to the injuries on 23-4-2013 at 7.05p.m. The
Post-mortem was conducted on 24-4-2013 at Bowring and
Lady Curzon hospital, Bangalore.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that they have spent
60,000/- towards funeral and obsequies ceremony and
Rs.10,000/- towards shifting of the deceased to the hospital
and then to cremation.
5. It is the case of the petitioners that the deceased prior
to the accident, was aged about 57 years and working as
driver in a private company by name Nateshan Antics,
opposite to Baldwin's Girls High School, Bangalore and
earning Rs.10,000/-p.m.
6. The petitioner in MVC.6520/13 is none other than
the wife of the deceased Manjunath. She was also traveling in
the above said tempo traveler as on the date of accident. She
has sustained bleeding injuries to left hand, left leg, chest
6 MVC.6519/13 ,6520/13,6522/13,6524
To 6527/13 &6521/13.
SCH-16
and other parts of the body. She was immediately after the
accident shifted to Achichunchanagiri hospital and then
shifted to M.S.Ramaiah hospital and thereafter shifted to
St.Philomena hospital, wherein, she was inpatient from 7-4-
13 to 8-4-13. Prior to the date of accident, she was house
wife and due to the accidental injuries, she cannot do her
house hold work, so she has to engage a servant for personal
work.
7. The petitioner in MVC.6522/13 has sustained
fracture of back spinal card and he was inpatient at Hosmat
hospital from 7-4-13 to 9-4-13. Prior to the date of accident,
he was working as attender in Bangalore University,
Jnanbharathi, Bangalore and earning Rs.22,000/-p.m. and
due to the accidental injuries, he cannot do any work. He
has spent Rs.60,000/- for his medical expenses.
8. The petitioner in MVC.6524/13 has sustained
multiple fracture injuries to ribs fore head and eye.
Immediately after the accident, she was shifted to
Achichunchanagiri hospital and then shifted to St.Philomena
hospital, Bangalore, where he took treatment as inpatient
from 7-4-13 to 11-4-13. Prior to the date of accident, he was
7 MVC.6519/13 ,6520/13,6522/13,6524
To 6527/13 &6521/13.
SCH-16
working as house keeping in a private office and earning
Rs.6000/-p.m., and due to the accidental injuries, she
cannot do any work. She has spent Rs.50,000/- for her
medical expenses.
9. The petitioner in MVC.6525/13 has sustained
multiple fracture injuries and under went surgery to his left
leg with implants. Immediately after the accident, he was
shifted to Achichunchanagiri hospital and then shifted to
Hosmat hospital and then shifted to St.Philomena hospital,
Bangalore, where he took treatment as inpatient from 7-4-13
to 29-4-13. Prior to the date of accident, he was working as
driver and earning Rs.20000/-p.m. and due to the accidental
injuries, he cannot do any work. He has spent Rs.3,00,000/-
for his medical expenses.
10. The petitioner in MVC.6526/13 has sustained
multiple fracture injuries and she under went surgery to her
left hand and shoulder. Immediately after the accident, she
was shifted to Achichunchanagiri hospital and then shifted
to St.Philomena hospital, Bangalore, where she took
treatment as inpatient from 7-4-13 to 23-4-13. Prior to the
date of accident, she was working at candle factory and
8 MVC.6519/13 ,6520/13,6522/13,6524
To 6527/13 &6521/13.
SCH-16
earning Rs.8000/-p.m. and due to the accidental injuries,
she cannot do any work. She has spent Rs.3,00,000/- for her
medical expenses.
11. The petitioner in MVC.6527/13 has sustained
multiple fracture injuries and under went surgery.
Immediately after the accident, she was shifted to
Achichunchanagiri hospital and then shifted to Hosmat
hospital, Bangalore, where she took treatment as inpatient
from 7-4-13 to 12-4-13. Prior to the date of accident, she
was working at Shreesha Engineering works and earning
Rs.10000/-p.m. and due to the accidental injuries, she
cannot do any work. She has spent Rs.6,00,000/- for her
medical and other incidental expenses.
12. The petitioner in MVC.6521/13 has sustained
multiple fracture injuries and suffered paralyze to her entire
right side of the body. Immediately after the accident, she was
shifted to Achichunchanagiri hospital and then shifted to
M.S.Ramaiah hospital, Bangalore, where she took treatment
as inpatient from 7-4-13 to 17-6-13. Prior to the date of
accident, she was house wife and due to the accidental
9 MVC.6519/13 ,6520/13,6522/13,6524
To 6527/13 &6521/13.
SCH-16
injuries, she cannot do any work. She has spent
Rs.4,00,000/- for her medical expenses.
13. It is stated that Bellur Police have registered a
case against the driver of offending Maxi cab for the offence
punishable under Sec.279,279, 338 &304(A) of IPC in
Cr.No.88/13. The respondent No.1 being the insurer
and respondent No.2 being owner of the offending vehicle,
are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to all
the petitioners. On all these grounds, petitioners in all the
petitions prayed for awarding compensation.
14. In response to the notice, the respondent Nos1&2
appeared before this Tribunal through their respective
counsel and filed their objections.
15. The respondent No.1 has filed their written
statement by contending that they issued policy in respect of
offending vehicle bearing No.KA.03/D.793 for the period
between 3-8-12 to 2-8-13. Further, they have contended that
their liability is subject to the compliance Sec.64B of
Insurance Act along with the terms and conditions of the
policy. It is contended that the seating capacity of the insured
vehicle is 12+1, whereas 15 passengers were traveling in the
10 MVC.6519/13 ,6520/13,6522/13,6524
To 6527/13 &6521/13.
SCH-16
said vehicle. It is contended that the owner of the vehicle has
not informed the accident to the jurisdictional police and also
failed to intimate the accident to the insurer. The respondent
No.1 has further contended that there is violation of Sec.134
( c) and 158(6) of MV Act.
16. The respondent No.1 denied that the accident was
due to the rash and negligent driving of Tempo traveler
bearing No.KA.03/D.793 by its driver. They have also denied
the age, income and occupation, medical expenses incurred
by the petitioners and the death of Manjunath in the
accident. It is submitted that the driver of Tempo traveller
bearing No.KA.03/D.793 was at fault for cause of the
accident but the driver of KSRTC bus over took offending
vehicle and due to the impact, the driver of tempo traveler lost
control over the vehicle and dashed to the road side wall and
the vehicle got toppled. It is contended that the compensation
claimed by the petitioners is exorbitant and excessive in all
the petitions. On all these grounds, respondent No.1 prayed
for dismissal of the petitions with costs.
17. The respondent No.2 denied the age, income,
avocation, medical expenses incurred by the petitioners,
11 MVC.6519/13 ,6520/13,6522/13,6524
To 6527/13 &6521/13.
SCH-16
involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident and
injuries sustained by all the petitioners and death of
Manjunath in the accident etc. The respondent No.2 has
contended that Tempo traveller bearing No.KA.03/D.793 was
insured with the 2nd respondent and it was in force as on the
date of accident. It is further contended that the driver of
KSRTC bus hit to the offending vehicle from its back, because
of which, accident took place. The respondents No.2 denied
the owner of the offending vehicle has not complied with the
statutory demand as per Sec.134 (c) and 158(6) of MV Act. On
all these grounds, respondent No.2 prayed for dismissal of the
petitions with costs.
18. On the basis of the above pleadings, my predecessor
in office had framed the following issues in both the petitions:
ISSUES IN MVC No.6519/13
1. Whether the petitioners prove that
Manjunath succumbed died due to the
injuries sustained by him a motor
vehicle accident that was taken place
on 7-4-13, at about1a.m. near Devi
Halli Vilalge, on NH-48, Bellur Hobli,
Nagamangala taluk involving Tempo
traveller bearing No.KA.03/D.793 and
respondent No.2 is the owner and the
said vehicle insured with the 1st
respondent?
12 MVC.6519/13 ,6520/13,6522/13,6524
To 6527/13 &6521/13.
SCH-16
2. Whether the petitioners prove that they
are the only Legal Heirs and the
dependents of the deceased?
3. Whether the petitioners prove that the
accident has mainly occurred due to the
rash and negligent driving of the driver
of the said vehicle?
4. Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation amount? If so how much
and from whom?
5. What order?
ISSUES IN MVCs. 6520/13, 6522/13
6524/13, 6525/13, 6526/13, 6527/13
and 6521/13:
1. Whether the petitioner proves that
he/she sustained grievous injuries in an
accident that was occurred due to rash
and negligent driving of the driver of the
Maxi cab Temp bearing No. KA.03/D.793
on 7-4-13, at about1a.m. Devi halli
Village on NH-48, Bellur Hobli,
Nagamangala Taluk?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation as prayed? If so how
much and from whom?
3. What order?
19. The 2nd petitioner/son of the deceased Manjunath
examined as PW-1 in MVC.6519/13 and got marked
documents at Ex.P.1 to P.15. The petitioner in MVC.6520/13
13 MVC.6519/13 ,6520/13,6522/13,6524
To 6527/13 &6521/13.
SCH-16
examined as PW-2 and got marked Ex.P.16 to P.19. The
petitioner in MVC.6522/13 examined as PW-3 and got
marked Ex.P.20 to P.24. The petitioner in MVC.6524/13
examined as PW-4 and got marked Ex.P.25 to P.28. The
petitioner in MVC.6525/13 examined as PW-5 and got
marked Ex.P.29 to P.35. The petitioner in MVC.6526/13
examined as PW-6 and got marked Ex.P.36 to P.39. The
petitioner in MVC.6527/13 examined as PW-7 and got
marked Ex.P.40 to P.43. The petitioner in MVC.6521/13
examined as PW-8 and got marked Ex.P.44 to P.49. The
petitioner in MVCs.6519/13, 6520/13,6524/13, 6525/13
and 6526/13 examined the medical record technician of
St.Philomena hospital as PW-9 and got marked documents at
Ex.P.50 to 52. The record keeper of M.S.Ramaiah hospital is
examined as PW-10 and got marked documents at Ex.53 to
P.61. The Medical record Officer of Hosmat hospital is
examined as PW-11 and he got marked documents at Ex.P.62
to P.67. The Medical record technician of Adichunchanagiri
hospital is examined as PW-12 and got marked documents at
Ex.P.68 to P.70. The Proprietor of GRN Products is examined
as PW-13 and got marked documents at Ex.P.71 to P.73. The
14 MVC.6519/13 ,6520/13,6522/13,6524
To 6527/13 &6521/13.
SCH-16
C.S.Gopinath proprietor of Srisha Engineering is examined
as PW-14. The doctor in MVC.6527/13 is examined as PW-15
and got marked Ex.P.74 and P.75. The Doctor in
MVC.6520/13 is examined as PW-15 and got marked
documents at Ex.P.76. The petitioner in MVCs.6525/13,
6526/13, and 6527/13 is examined the doctor as PW-16
and got marked Ex.P.77 to P.79. The respondent No.1&2
have not led any evidence on their behalf in all the petitions.
20. I have heard the arguments and perused the
materials on record.
21. By considering the evidence on record and because
of my below discussed reasons, I answer the above issues in
the followings:
IN MVC No.6519/13
Issue No.1: IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
Issue No.2: IN THE AFFIRMATIVE
Issue No.3: IN THE AFFIRMATIVE
Issue No.4: PARTLY IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
Issue No.5: AS PER FINAL ORDER
6520/13,6522/13, 6524/13, 6525/13,
6526/13, 6527/13 and 6521/13:
Issue No.1: IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
Issue No.2: IN THE AFFIRMATIVE
Issue No.3: AS PER FINAL ORDER.
15 MVC.6519/13 ,6520/13,6522/13,6524
To 6527/13 &6521/13.
SCH-16
REASONS
ISSUE NO.1 IN ALL THE PETITIONS AND ISSUE NO.3
IN MVC.6519/13: -
22. In all the petitions, it is alleged that the accident was
due to the rash and negligent driving of Tempo traveller
bearing No.KA.03/D.793. The accident in question is not
disputed by the respondent Nos.1 &2. Only the contentions
which was put forth by the respondent No.1 is that the
accident was not due to the rash and negligent driving of
driver of Tempo traveller bearing No.KA.03/D.793, but it was
due to the negligence of the driver of KSRTC Bus, who hit the
tempo traveler from back, because of which, the driver of
offending vehicle lost control over the vehicle and went to the
extreme left side of the road and toppled.
23. The petitioners in MVC.6519/13 have stated the
manner of accident and also about the death of Manjunath
in the said accident.
The petitioners in all the petitions have filed their
respective affidavits by reiterating the petition averments in
their examination-in-chief and stated about the manner of
accident, injuries sustained by them and death of Manjunath,
the medical expenses incurred for their treatment. They have
16 MVC.6519/13 ,6520/13,6522/13,6524
To 6527/13 &6521/13.
SCH-16
stated that the accident was due to the rash and negligent
driving of driver of Tempo Traveller bearing No.KA.03/D.793.
24. Apart from the above said oral evidence, all the
petitioners, in all cases have produced the FIR and complaint
as per Ex.P.1, spot mahazar as per Ex.P.2, Spot sketch at
Ex.P.3, death intimation as per Ex.P.4, intimation issued by
the jurisdictional police to convert the case under Sec.304(A)
of IPC, inquest mahazar at Ex.P.6, all the petitioners have
produced their respective wound certificate and case sheet.
25. On perusal of complaint and FIR at Ex.P.1, it is
mentioned in the complaint that the driver of KSRTC Bus at
the time of overtaking the Tempo traveler dashed to the right
side of the tempo, because of which, the driver of Tempo
traveler lost control over the vehicle and the vehicle toppled.
But, the jurisdictional police after thorough investigation have
filed charge sheet against the driver of Tempo traveller for the
offence punishable under Sec.279,337,338 &304(A) of IPC.
Though, as per the complaint, when the driver of KSRTC Bus
dashed against the Tempo traveler, but, the respondents have
not made any efforts to examine the driver of Tempo traveller
bearing No.KA.03/D.793 or driver of KSRTC Bus. During the
17 MVC.6519/13 ,6520/13,6522/13,6524
To 6527/13 &6521/13.
SCH-16
course of investigation, the jurisdictional police conducted the
spot mahazar, spot sketch and IMV report discloses that the
accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of
Tempo traveller bearing No.KA.03/D.793.
26. It is to be noted that though the respondents 1&2
have appeared before this Tribunal and filed their respective
written statements, have not led any evidence on their behalf
to substantiate the contentions taken in the written
statements. In the absence of any contra materials to prove
the negligence on the part of the driver of KSRTC bus, this
tribunal has to believe the police records as discussed above
and come to the conclusion that the accident was due to the
rash and negligent driving of Tempo traveller bearing
No.KA.03/D.793 by its driver.
27. The respondent No.1 during the course of cross-
examination of petitioners in all the cases made efforts to cull
out from the mouth that the accident was not due to the
rash and negligent driving of driver of Tempo traveller bearing
No.KA.03/D.793. But none of the petitioners have admitted
that the accident was not due to the rash and negligent
driving of Tempo traveller bearing No.KA.03/D.793. More over
18 MVC.6519/13 ,6520/13,6522/13,6524
To 6527/13 &6521/13.
SCH-16
the charge sheet was filed against the driver of offending
vehicle and the respondent No.1 and 2 have not led any
evidence on their behalf. Accordingly, I answer the issue No.1
in all the petitions and issue No.3 in MVC.6519/13 in the
Affirmative.
ISSUE NO.2 IN MVC.6519/13:- The petitioners being
LRs of deceased Manjunath have filed claim petition . They
have produced the ID card of the deceased and also elcection
ID cards of the petitioners as well as deceased. There are no
rival claimants before this Tribunal by anybody claiming to be
LRs of deceased Manjunath. The respondents have also not
led any evidence nor produced any documents to show that
other than the petitioners, there are no other LRs of the
deceased Manjunath. Hence, the petitioners with the help of
above said documents, have proved that they are only LRs of
and dependents of the deceased. Hence, I answer issue No.2
in the affirmative.
19 MVC.6519/13 ,6520/13,6522/13,6524
To 6527/13 &6521/13.
SCH-16
ISSUE NO.2 IN ALL THE PETITIONS AND ISSUE NO.4
IN MVC.6519/13:-
28. These issues are relating to the quantum of
compensation to be awarded to the petitioners and liability to
pay the same.
The petitioners in MVC.6519/13 are none other than
the wife and son of the deceased Manjunath. As per the
petition averments, the deceased was driver by profession and
earning Rs.10,000/-p.m. The entire medical records of the
deceased marked as Ex.P.46. The notarized copy of election
ID card petitioners is marked as per Ex.8 and P.9. The
notarized election ID card of the deceased is at Ex.P.10. As
per the voters ID, the date of birth of the deceased was 1-1-
1956. Further as per the Post-mortem report, age of the
deceased was shown as 59years. Pw-1 has admitted that
there are no documents to show the income and avocation of
the deceased, hence, this tribunal has to determine the
notional income of the deceased. This accident is of the year
2013. The deceased was aged 58years as on the date of
accident. Therefore, considering this fact, notional income of
the deceased is determined as Rs.8,000/-p.m.
20 MVC.6519/13 ,6520/13,6522/13,6524
To 6527/13 &6521/13.
SCH-16
29. The Hon'ble Apex court in the ruling reported in
2013 ACJ 1403 (Rajesh and others vs Rajbir Singh and
others) held that the future prospects should be adopted even
when the person is self employed or were engaged on fixed
wages. In para-11 and 12 of said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex
court discussed the principles laid down in the Sarla Verma's
case reported in 2009 ACJ 1298(SC) and another ruling
reported in 2012 ACJ 1428(SC) in Santhosh Devi's case held
that even when the person is self-employed or at fixed wages,
the future prospectus is to be considered. The Apex court has
held that 50% of the actual income of the deceased have to be
taken for the future prospectus below 40years and 30% for
the age group of 40-50years and 15% for the age group of 50-
60years is to be added as future prospectus.
30.Further, in another rulings of Apex court reported in
Civil Appeal No.4497/2015 between Munnalal Jain and
another vs Vipin Kumar Sharma and others) held that the age
of the deceased should taken into account for applying the
proper multiplier.
31. As I have already discussed above, the age of the
deceased has to be taken into account, while calculating the
21 MVC.6519/13 ,6520/13,6522/13,6524
To 6527/13 &6521/13.
SCH-16
loss of dependency and the relevant multiplier applicable to
the age of the deceased is 9. Hence, the following calculation:
(i) Salary ...Rs.8,000/-p.m.
(ii)15% of (i) above said salary
to be added as future prospectus ... Rs.8,000+1200=
...Rs.9,200-00p.m.
Less 1/3 deducted as personal
expenses of the deceased. ...Rs. 9,200/--3067-=
... Rs. 6133/-x12x9=
Compensation after multiplier of 9
is applied ... Rs.6,62,364/-
The petitioners are entitled for the compensation of
Rs.6,62,364/-under the head loss of dependency.
32. The Apex Court, in the case reported in 2015 SAR
(Civil) 145 (Kala Devi and others vs Bhagwan Das Chauhan
and others) loss of estate was awarded Rs.1,00,000/- as
compensation to the family members (children and family
members other than wife) for loss of love and affection,
deprivation of protection, social security etc., and
Rs.2,00,000/-as compensation to the children and parents of
the deceased for loss of love and affection, pains and
sufferings, loss of consortium, deprivation of protection, social
security etc., and Rs.25,000/- towards cost incurred on
22 MVC.6519/13 ,6520/13,6522/13,6524
To 6527/13 &6521/13.
SCH-16
account of funeral and ritual expenses. In this case, since
the deceased has left behind his wife and son , I deem it
proper to award Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the family
members (children and family members other than wife) for
loss of love and affection, deprivation of protection, social
security etc., Rs.50,000/- to the widow of the deceased for
loss of love and affection, pains and sufferings, loss of
consortium, deprivation of protection, social security etc.,
and Rs.25,000/- towards cost incurred on account of funeral
and ritual expenses.
33. The PW-1 has produced the medical bills as per
Ex.P.11 and P.12. They have also produced the prescriptions .
The case sheet at Ex.P.46 reveals that the deceased
Manjunath was inpatient from 7-4-13 to 23-4-13.
Manjunath died during the period of treatment on 23-4-13.
The total medical bills are to the tune of Rs.3,05,155/- as per
Ex.P.11 and P.12. Hence, the petitioners are entitled for
Rs.3,05,155/- to medical expenses of the deceased.
The details of compensation I propose to award are as
under:
Sl.No. Head of Compensation Amount/Rs.
1. Loss of dependency 6,62,364-00
23 MVC.6519/13 ,6520/13,6522/13,6524
To 6527/13 &6521/13.
SCH-16
2. Compensation to the family 1,00,000-00
members (children and family
members other than wife) for
loss of love and affection,
deprivation of protection,
social security etc.
3. Compensation to the petitioner
No.1 loss of consortium, Love
50,000-00
and affection, pains and
sufferings, deprivation of
protection, social security etc
4 Funeral expenses 25,000-000
5 Medical bills 3,05,155-00
Total 11,42,519-00
In all the Petitioners are entitled for compensation
of Rs.11,42,519/-.
Petitioner in MVC.6520/13
34. The petitioner in MVC.6520/13 was stated to be the
house wife and because of the said accident, she has to hire
servant for her personal work as well as house hold works. As
per Ex.P.47-case sheet of this petitioner reveals that she has
sustained bleeding through nose, tenderness over both
shoulders, back and right hip, contusion over left eye, mild
tenderness over hypogastric region. The discharge summary
reveals that the chest x-ray was taken and it reveals the
undisplaced fracture of right scapula, left 6,8th posterior rib,
right 11th and right transverse process of L1,L2 vertebral
24 MVC.6519/13 ,6520/13,6522/13,6524
To 6527/13 &6521/13.
SCH-16
bodies. Mild grade-I spondylolisthesis of C4 over C5 vertebral
body with minimal pleural effusion with subsegmental
collapse. The discharge summary reveals that the said
petitioner was admitted as inpatient from 7-4-013 to 18-4-
13. Looking to the injuries sustained by the petitioner and
number of days treatment taken as an inpatient in the
hospital, I feel it is just and proper to award compensation of
Rs.35,000/- to the petitioner under the head pain and
sufferings.
35. The petitioner was inpatient at St.Pholomenas
hospital, which could be seen from the discharge summary.
In total, the petitioner was inpatient for a period of 12days.
She might have spent huge amount towards her treatment,
conveyance, nutritious food etc. Therefore, I feel it is just
and proper to award a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner
under the head attendant charges, extra nutritious food and
conveyance charges etc.
36. The petitioner has produced the medical bills at
Ex.P.15 to the tune of Rs.72,968/- is rounded off to
Rs.73,000/-, for which, the petitioner is entitled.
25 MVC.6519/13 ,6520/13,6522/13,6524
To 6527/13 &6521/13.
SCH-16
37. This petitioner has not examined the doctor who
treated her. She has not produced the disability certificate.
Hence, she is not entitled for any compensation under the
head loss of income due to permanent disability. However,
the petitioner is entitled for compensation towards loss of
income during laid up period. The petitioner has stated that
she is a house wife and hence, her notional is arrived at
Rs.6000/-p.m. She was in-patient in St.Philomena's hospital
from 7-4-13 to 18-4-13. During that period, she might have
prevented from doing any work and earning for a period of
3months to recover from the injuries and fracture. Hence,
considering the nature of injuries and period of treatment,
this tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for
compensation of Rs.18,000/- during the laid up period.
38. The petitioner has sustained grievous nature of
injuries and fracture. Therefore, she might have suffered lot of
pain, loss of amenities and comforts in her life Hence, this
entitled for compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of
amenities and future happiness.
26 MVC.6519/13 ,6520/13,6522/13,6524
To 6527/13 &6521/13.
SCH-16
39. There are no grounds to award any compensation
under other heads. So, the petitioner is entitled for the
compensation under these following heads:-
IN MVC.6520/13
1. Pain and sufferings Rs. 35,000/-
2 Attendant charges, Rs. 10,000/-
nutritious food,
conveyance and trans-
-portation charges
3 Medical expenses Rs. 73,000/-
4 Loss of income during laid Rs. 18,000/-
of period
5 Loss of future amenities Rs. 10,000/-
and happiness
Total Rs. 1,46,000/-
In total, the petitioner in MVC.6520/13 is entitled for
the compensation of Rs.1,46,000/-.
The Petitioner IN MVC.6522/13:-
40. The petitioner in MVC.6522/13 was stated to be
the attender in Bangalore University, Jnanabharathi,
Bangalore and drawing salary of Rs.22,000/-p.m. As per his
discharge summary at Ex.P.62 reveals that the petitioner
was inpatient from 7-4-13 to 9-4-13 at Hosmat hospital. The
case sheet reveals that he has sustained fracture of 10th and
11th left side rib , right 11th rib and supra orbital fracture.
The wound certificate also reveals that the petitioner has
27 MVC.6519/13 ,6520/13,6522/13,6524
To 6527/13 &6521/13.
SCH-16
sustained rib fracture as stated above. Considering the
injuries sustained by the petitioner and number of days
treatment taken as an inpatient in the hospital, I feel it is just
and proper to award compensation of Rs.30,000/- to the
petitioner under the head pain and sufferings.
41. The petitioner was inpatient at Hosmat hospital
hospital, which could be seen from the discharge summary.
In total, the petitioner was inpatient for a period of 3days.
He might have spent some amount towards his treatment,
conveyance, nutritious food etc. Therefore, I feel it is just
and proper to award a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner
under the head attendant charges, extra nutritious food and
conveyance charges etc.
42. The petitioner has produced the medical bills at
Ex.P.19 to the tune of Rs.21,729/- is rounded off to
Rs.22,000/-, for which, the petitioner is entitled.
43. This petitioner has not examined the doctor who
treated him. He has not produced the disability certificate. In
the cross-examination, the petitioner has admitted that he
has continued the same job even after the accident and
drawing more salary than prior to the date of accident. He
28 MVC.6519/13 ,6520/13,6522/13,6524
To 6527/13 &6521/13.
SCH-16
has not produced any documents to show that because of the
above said injuries, he availed leave to take rest and lost his
earnings during laid up period. This view of mine is supported
by the rulings reported in 2010(2) AIR KAR 592 (Bajaj
Allianz Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd., vs N.M.Rajaprakash and
another), ILR 2010 KAR 2439 (Subash vs The New India
Ins.Co.Ltd., and others) and 2011 ACJ 1 Rajkumar vs
Ajaya Kumar and another) Hence, the petitioner has
continued in his job and earning more salary than prior to
the accident, question of awarding compensation under the
head loss of income due to permanent disability and also
loss of income during laid up period does not arise.
44. The petitioner has sustained ribs injuries and
fracture. Therefore, he might have suffered lot of pain, loss of
amenities and comforts in his life Hence, this tribunal is of
the opinion, that this petitioner is entitled for compensation
of Rs.10,000/-towards loss of amenities and future
happiness.
45. There are no grounds to award any compensation
under other heads. So, the petitioner is entitled for the
compensation under these following heads:-
29 MVC.6519/13 ,6520/13,6522/13,6524
To 6527/13 &6521/13.
SCH-16
IN MVC.6522/13
1. Pain and sufferings Rs. 30,000/-
2 Attendant charges, Rs. 05,000/-
nutritious food,
conveyance and trans-
-portation charges
3 Medical expenses Rs. 22,000/-
4 Loss of future amenities Rs. 10,000/-
and happiness
Total Rs. 67,000/-
In total, the petitioner in MVC.6522/13 is entitled for
the compensation of Rs.67,000/-.
Petitioner in MVC.6524/13:
46. The petitioner in MVC.6524/13 was stated to be the
house keeping in a private office and earning Rs.6,000/-p.m.
She has admitted that she has not produced any documents
to show that she is working as House Keeping at private
company earning Rs.6000/-p.m. However, the discharge
summary at Ex.P.48 and wound certificate at Ex.P.23 reveals
that the petitioner has sustained fracture left side pubic
symphysis, sutured wound on left supra orbital region with
periorbital edema. As per Ex.P.48-discharge summary,
reveals that the petitioner was admitted as inpatient from
7-4-013 to 11-4-13. Looking to the injuries sustained by the
petitioner and number of days treatment taken as an
30 MVC.6519/13 ,6520/13,6522/13,6524
To 6527/13 &6521/13.
SCH-16
inpatient in the hospital, I feel it is just and proper to award
compensation of Rs.30,000/- to the petitioner under the
head pain and sufferings.
47. The petitioner was inpatient at St.Pholomenas
hospital, which could be seen from the discharge summary.
In total, the petitioner was inpatient for a period of 5days.
She might have spent huge amount towards her treatment,
conveyance, nutritious food etc. Therefore, I feel it is just
and proper to award a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner
under the head attendant charges, extra nutritious food and
conveyance charges etc.
48. The petitioner has produced the medical bills at
Ex.P.25 to the tune of Rs.46,565/- is rounded off to
Rs.47,000/-, for which, the petitioner is entitled.
49. This petitioner has not examined the doctor who
treated her. She has not produced the disability certificate.
Hence, she is not entitled for any compensation under the
head loss of income due to permanent disability. However, the
petitioner is entitled for compensation towards loss of income
during laid up period. The petitioner has stated that she is
working as house keeping in a private limited , but, she has
31 MVC.6519/13 ,6520/13,6522/13,6524
To 6527/13 &6521/13.
SCH-16
not produced any documents to show her income and
avocation. She has not examined her employer. Hence, the
contention of petitioner that she is working as house keeping
in a private limited cannot be believed. If the petitioner
assumed that she is a coolie and she might have earned as
um of Rs.200/- per day, which comes to Rs.6000/-p.m. She
was in-patient in St.Philomena's hospital from 7-4-13 to
11-4-13. She has sustained injuries as stated in the wound
certificate. During that period, she might have prevented
from doing any work and earning for a period of 3months for
her to recover from the injuries and fracture. Hence,
considering the nature of injuries and period of treatment
taken by her, this tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner
is entitled for compensation of Rs.18,000/- during the laid
up period.
50. The petitioner has sustained grievous nature of
injuries and fracture. Therefore, she might have suffered lot of
pain, loss of amenities and comforts in her life Hence, this
entitled for compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of
amenities and future happiness.
32 MVC.6519/13 ,6520/13,6522/13,6524
To 6527/13 &6521/13.
SCH-16
51. There are no grounds to award any compensation
under other heads. So, the petitioner is entitled for the
compensation under these following heads:-
IN MVC.6524/13
1. Pain and sufferings Rs. 30,000/-
2 Attendant charges, Rs. 10,000/-
nutritious food,
conveyance and trans-
-portation charges
3 Medical expenses Rs. 47,000/-
4 Loss of income during laid Rs. 18,000/-
of period
5 Loss of future amenities Rs. 10,000/-
and happiness
Total Rs. 1,15,000/-
In total, the petitioner in MVC.6524/13 is entitled for
the compensation of Rs.1,15,000/-.
The petitioner in MVC.6525/13:
52. The petitioner in this case has sustained fracture of
hip. PW-16-doctor has stated that the petitioner has
sustained intertrochanteric fracture left hip with
subtrochanteric extension. He has stated that the petitioner
was inpatient from 7-4-13 to 29-4-13. The petitioner was
operated on 10-4-13 for left femur nailing. The doctor has
assessed the whole body disability at 12.05%. Considering the
injuries sustained by the petitioner and number of days
33 MVC.6519/13 ,6520/13,6522/13,6524
To 6527/13 &6521/13.
SCH-16
treatment taken by him as an in-patient, I feel it is just and
proper to award a sum of Rs.35,000/- to the petitioner under
the head pain and sufferings.
53. The petitioner had been admitted in the hospital as
an inpatient for the period of 23 days from 7-4-13 to 29-4-13.
Hence, I feel it is just and proper to award a sum of
Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner towards attendant charges,
extra nutritious food and transportation charges.
54. The medical bills produced by the petitioner as per
Ex.P.29 goes to show that he has incurred medical bills to the
tune of Rs.1,74,720/-. On verification of the medical bills, it
clear that the petitioner is entitled for actual medical
expenses incurred by the petitioner is Rs.1,15,933/-, which
can be rounded off to Rs.1,16,000/-. Hence, I feel it is just
and proper to award a sum of Rs.1,16,000/- to the petitioner
towards medical expenses.
55. The doctor-PW-16-doctor has stated that the
petitioner has sustained intertrochanteric fracture left hip
with subtrochanteric extension. PW-16 has stated that the
petitioner was inpatient from 7-4-13 to 29-4-13. The
petitioner was operated on 10-4-13 for left femur nailing. The
34 MVC.6519/13 ,6520/13,6522/13,6524
To 6527/13 &6521/13.
SCH-16
doctor has assessed the whole body disability at 12.05%. In
the cross-examination, the doctor/PW-16 has stated that he
is one of the doctors in the team who treated the petitioner.
He has admitted that the fractures are united. He has further
stated that the petitioner has reached the final stage of
recovery and this petitioner has no neurological disability. A
suggestion was put to PW-16 that the fractures are united
and the whole body disability cannot be more than 7% and
the said suggestions were denied. Over all, evaluating the
evidence of PW-16, it is quite clear that the fracture of
petitioner is united and he has reached the final stage of
recovery. PW-16 has given the whole body disability at
12.05% which appears to be on higher side. Considering the
difficulties the petitioner had and his occupation, the whole
body disability of the petitioner may not be more than 10%.
Hence, I determine the whole body disability of the petitioner
as 10%.
56. The petitioner is a driver by profession in Private
travels and earning Rs.20,000/-p.m. Absolutely, there are
no documents produced to show that he is a driver by
profession in a private travels and earning Rs.20,000/-p.m.
35 MVC.6519/13 ,6520/13,6522/13,6524
To 6527/13 &6521/13.
SCH-16
The petitioner as on the date of accident was aged about
28years. He has not examined his employer or produced the
salary certificate. However, considering the age of the
petitioner, this tribunal deems to take the notional income of
the petitioner as Rs.7000/- p.m. The petitioner was inpatient
for a period of 23 days from 7-4-13 to 29-4-13. The petitioner
has sustained fracture of hip and he also under went surgery
for left femur nailing on 10-04-13. The petitioner has
produced DL, his date of birth is shown as 24-8-1980. As per
DL, the petitioner was aged 33 years as on the date of
accident, applicable multiplier for his age is 16.
(7000/10%)=700x12=Rs.8400/-p.a. If Rs.8400/- is multiplied
by 16, it would be Rs.1,34,400/- which can be rounded of to
Rs.1,35,000/-. Hence, I feel it is just and proper to award a
sum of Rs.1,35,000/- to the petitioner towards loss of future
income due to permanent disability.
57. As the petitioner has sustained fracture of hip and
he had been in the hospital as inpatient for the period of 23
days and he being driver by profession, he might have
prevented from doing his any job and earning any income for
the period of 3 months. Therefore, I feel it is just and proper
36 MVC.6519/13 ,6520/13,6522/13,6524
To 6527/13 &6521/13.
SCH-16
to award a sum of Rs.21,000/- to the petitioner towards loss
of income during the period of taking treatment.
58. The petitioner has sustained intertrochanteric
fracture left hip with subtrochanteric extension. Therefore,
he might have suffered lot of pain, loss of amenities and
comforts in his life Hence, this entitled for compensation of
Rs.15,000/- towards loss of amenities and future happiness.
59. The Doctor has stated that the fractures are united
but he has not stated that the implants are removed. Hence,
considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner,
I feel it is just and proper to award a sum of Rs.5,000/-
towards future medical expenses The petitioner is not entitled
for the compensation under other heads. So the petitioner is
entitled for the compensation under these following heads:-
1 Pain and sufferings Rs. 35,000/-
2 Attendant charges,
Rs. 10,000/-
nutritious expenses &
transportation charges
3 Medical expenses Rs. 1,16,000/-
4 Loss of future income due to Rs. 1,35,000/-
permanent disability
5 Loss of income during laid Rs. 21,000/-
of period
6 Loss of future amenities and Rs. 15,000/-
happiness
37 MVC.6519/13 ,6520/13,6522/13,6524
To 6527/13 &6521/13.
SCH-16
7 Future medical expenses Rs. 05,000/-
Total Rs. 3,37,000/-
In total, the petitioner is entitled for the compensation of
Rs.3,37,000/-.
Petitioner in MVC.6526/13:-
60. As per the petition averments and evidence of
petitioner, she was aged about 45 years as on the date of
accident. She was working in the candle factory and earning
Rs.8,000/-p.m.. The discharge summary and wound
certificate of this petitioner are marked at Ex.P.34 and P.50
respectively which reveals that the petitioner sustained
multiple rib fracture, fracture of both bones of left forearm
bilaterlal inferior and superior pubic remi fracture. She was
inpatient from 7-4-13 to 23-4-13. She was operated on 13-4-
2013 for both bones of forearm fracture. Other fractures were
treated conservatively. She under went ORIF with plating
both bones of left forearm under brachial block on 13-4-13.
Further fracture of radial reduced and fixed with 6-holed
stainless steel plate with 7cortical screws. She was
discharged with an advice to take follow-up-treatment. The
petitioner was inpatient for a period of 18 days from 7-4-13
38 MVC.6519/13 ,6520/13,6522/13,6524
To 6527/13 &6521/13.
SCH-16
to 24-4-13. She has sustained the fractures as stated in the
discharge summary. Looking to the injuries sustained by the
petitioner and number of days treatment taken as an
inpatient in the hospital, I feel it is just and proper to award
compensation of Rs.35,000/- to the petitioner under the
head pain and sufferings.
61. The petitioner was inpatient at St.Pholomenas
hospital, which could be seen from the discharge summary.
In total, the petitioner was inpatient for a period of 18days.
She might have spent huge amount towards her treatment,
conveyance, nutritious food etc. Therefore, I feel it is just
and proper to award a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the petitioner
under the head attendant charges, extra nutritious food and
conveyance charges etc.
62. The petitioner has produced the medical bills at
Ex.P.35 to the tune of Rs.1,27,470/-. On verification of the
medical bills, the advance bills are also included twice.
Hence, the petitioner is only entitled for medical bills to the
tune of Rs.1,20,000/- for which, the petitioner is entitled.
63. The Dr.M.K.Sharma, orthopedic Surgeon at
St.Pholimena's hospital is examined before this Tribunal. He
39 MVC.6519/13 ,6520/13,6522/13,6524
To 6527/13 &6521/13.
SCH-16
has stated that the petitioner has sustained multiple rib
fracture, fracture of both bones of left forearm bilaterlal
inferior and superior pubic remi fracture. She was inpatient
from 7-4-13 to 23-4-13 and under went operation for both
bones of forearm and other fracture were conservatively
treated. The doctor has assessed the whole body disability at
10%. He has also produced the radiograph with report.
64. During the course of his cross-examination, PW-16
has stated that he is one of the doctors in the team who
treated the petitioner. But he failed to produce the documents
to show that the petitioner has taken up the treatment as out
patient. He has also not produced any documents to show
that with the team of doctors, he has conducted the surgery
on the petitioner. But, he has stated that he is one of the
doctors in the team who treated the petitioner. On the basis
of surgery and also treatment given to the petitioner, he has
deposed as to the disability of the petitioner. The doctor has
admitted that he has no documents to show that he has
conducted the surgery on the petitioner.
65. On perusal of above said cross-examination of
PW-16, it is clear that he is not personally treated doctor of
40 MVC.6519/13 ,6520/13,6522/13,6524
To 6527/13 &6521/13.
SCH-16
the petitioner. Though, he may be one of the doctors in the
team, who treated the petitioner. Hence, his evidence has to
be evaluated carefully. The learned counsel for the
respondent No.1 has argued that PW-16 is not a treated
doctor of the petitioner and hence no reliance can be placed
on his evidence. But, it is to be noted that though Pw-16 is
not personally treated the petitioner, but, he is one of the
doctors in the team, who treated the petitioner. Hence, a little
importance has to be given to the evidence of PW-16. On
careful evaluation of the entire evidence of PW-16 and also
wound certificate and case sheet of the petitioner, it is evident
that this petitioner has sustained fracture of both bones of
fore am and also multiple rib fracture, bilaterlal inferior and
superior pubic remi fracture. The doctor has assessed the
whole body disability at 10%.
66. C.S.Gopinath, Proprietor of GRN Products,
processing Candles and Camphor is examined as PW-13. He
has produced the registration certificate issued by the
directorate of Industries and Commerce at Ex.P.68. PW-13
stated that since 2006, he knew Latha and she is working in
their firm in Packing Section and drawing salary of
41 MVC.6519/13 ,6520/13,6522/13,6524
To 6527/13 &6521/13.
SCH-16
Rs.10,000/-p.m. PW-13 though produced the Ex.P.68 and he
has admitted that she is working in their company, but not
produced any documents before this Tribunal to show that
the petitioner Smt.Latha is working in his firm since from
the year 2007 and drawing salary of Rs.10,000/-p.m. Hence,
no reliance can be placed on the evidence of PW-13. The
petitioner has not produced any documents to prove her age.
Hence, as per the medical records, she was aged about 45
years as on the date of accident. Even if the petitioner is
considered as coolie and she would have earned Rs.200/-per
day and Rs.6000/-p.m. PW-16 is not a treated doctor of the
petitioner, the whole body disability assessed at 10% appears
to be on higher side. Considering the difficulties the petitioner
had and her occupation, the whole body disability of the
petitioner may not be more than 8%. Hence, I determine the
whole body disability of the petitioner as 8%.
67. Due to 8% disability, annual loss of income would
be Rs.6000x8%=480x12=5,760/-p.a.. As the petitioner is
aged 45 years, multiplier 14 is applicable for her age. If
Rs.5,760/- is multiplied by 14, it would be Rs.80,640/- which
can be rounded of to Rs.81,000/-. Hence, I feel it is just and
42 MVC.6519/13 ,6520/13,6522/13,6524
To 6527/13 &6521/13.
SCH-16
proper to award a sum of Rs.81,000/- to the petitioner
towards loss of future income due to permanent disability.
68. The petitioner has sustained fracture of both bones
of fore am and also multiple rib fracture, bilaterlal inferior
and superior pubic remi fracture. She had been in the
hospital as inpatient for the period of 17 days she might have
prevented from doing her any job and earning any income for
the period of 4 months. Therefore, I feel it is just and proper
to award a sum of Rs.24,000/- at the rate of Rs.6000/-
p.m.to the petitioner towards loss of income during the period
of taking treatment.
69. The petitioner has sustained fracture of both bones
of forearm and also multiple rib fracture, bilaterlal inferior
and superior pubic remi fracture. Therefore, she might have
suffered lot of pain, loss of amenities and comforts in her life
Hence, this entitled for compensation of Rs.15,000/-
towards loss of amenities and future happiness.
70. Though the PW-16 has not stated that the petitioner
requires future surgery for removal of implants and but the
plates and screws were inserted were not yet removed. Hence,
I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled Rs.10,000/-
43 MVC.6519/13 ,6520/13,6522/13,6524
To 6527/13 &6521/13.
SCH-16
as compensation under the head future medical expenses.
The petitioner is not entitled for the compensation under
other heads. So the petitioner is entitled for the compensation
under these following heads:-
1. Pain and sufferings Rs. 35,000/-
2 Attendant charges, Rs. 15,000/-
nutritious food,
conveyance and trans-
-portation charges
3 Medical Bills Rs. 1,20,000/-
4 Loss of future income due Rs. 81,000/-
to permanent disability
5 Loss of income during laid Rs. 24,000/-
of period
6 Loss of amenities & Rs. 15,000/-
happiness
7 Future medical expenses Rs. 10,000/-
Total Rs. 3,00,000/-
In total, the petitioner in MVC No.6526/13 is entitled
for the compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-
Petitioner in MVC.6527/13:-
71. As per the petition averments, this petitioner was
aged about 20years as on the date of accident. She was
working as an Electrician in Shreesha Engineering and
earning Rs.10,000/-p.m. Her discharge summary at Ex.P.72
reveals that she has sustained blunt injury abdomen with
splentic tear with bleeding, cut lacerated wound right wrist
44 MVC.6519/13 ,6520/13,6522/13,6524
To 6527/13 &6521/13.
SCH-16
with exposure of extensor tendons and bone and rupture of
the 2nd, 3rd and 4th extensor tendons. She was inpatient from
7-4-13 to 12-4-13. Further the medical records reveals that
she has sustained injury to right wrist. The wound certificate
at Ex.P.38 reveals the said injuries sustained by the
petitioner. Considering the injuries sustained by the
petitioner and number of days treatment taken by her as an
in-patient, I feel it is just and proper to award a sum of
Rs.35,000/- to the petitioner under the head pain and
sufferings.
72. The petitioner had been admitted in the hospital as
an inpatient for the period of 5 days from 7-4-2013 to 12-4-
2013. Hence, I feel it is just and proper to award a sum of
Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner towards attendant charges,
extra nutritious food and transportation charges.
73. The medical bills produced by the petitioner as per
Ex.P.39 goes to show that she has incurred medical bills to
the tune of Rs.3,47,225/-. On careful perusal of medical bills
at Ex.P.39 reveals that there are some advance paid receipts
are also included and in total out patient bill, the bills which
are already calculated have also been included twice. Hence,
45 MVC.6519/13 ,6520/13,6522/13,6524
To 6527/13 &6521/13.
SCH-16
she is only entitled for the medical bills to the tune of
Rs.1,27,976/- which can be rounded off to Rs.1,28,000/-.
Hence, I feel it is just and proper to award a sum of
Rs.1,28,000/- to the petitioner towards medical expenses.
74. The Doctor who treated the petitioner is examined
as PW-16. He has stated that the petitioner has sustained
blunt injury abdomen with splentic tear with bleeding, cut
lacerated wound right wrist with exposure of extensor
tendons and bone and rupture of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th extensor
tendons. On 7-4-13, spenectomy was done to save the life of
petitioner. On 9-4-13 wound debridement and extensor
tendon was done. She was inpatient from 7-4-13 to 12-4-13.
He has stated that the wounds have healed but there is a
deep scar in her right wrist with prominent tendons and
persistent pain. The petitioner has a chance of developing
infections as her spleen has been removed. She is unable to
ride vehicle as she has very weak grip.
75. PW-16 in his cross-examination has admitted that
he is not treated the petitioner personally and his colleague
has treated the petitioner. He has stated that he has
discussed with his colleagues Deepu and Dr.Chandrashekar
46 MVC.6519/13 ,6520/13,6522/13,6524
To 6527/13 &6521/13.
SCH-16
Rai with respect to the injuries sustained by the petitioner.
He has stated that the petitioner will have difficulty to
perform her routine works. Pw-16 has admitted that the
petitioner has reached the maximum stage of recovery. He
has not issued any disability certificate. He has not assessed
the functional disability. The overall evidence of PW-16 is that
he is not personally treated the petitioner. The evidence of
PW-16 has to be carefully evaluated. In the opinion of doctor,
she has sustained whole body disability at 13% and right
upper limb disability at 40%.
76. Girish-Proprietor of Srisha Engineerings examined
as PW-14. PW-14 stated that he know Smt.Mamatha as she
was working in their firm as Supervisor and drawing salary of
Rs.10,000/-p.m.. He got marked Ex.P.69- to P.71. But during
the course of his cross-examination, he has clearly stated
that there is no documents to show that the petitioner was
working as Supervisor in their company and drawing salary of
Rs.10,000/-p.m. Hence, no reliance can be placed on the
evidence of PW-15 to believe that she was drawing salary of
Rs.10,000/-p.m. The discharge summary and wound
certificate of this petitioner are marked at Ex.P.72 and P.38
47 MVC.6519/13 ,6520/13,6522/13,6524
To 6527/13 &6521/13.
SCH-16
respectively reveals that the petitioner sustained Blunt
trauma abdomen with haemoperitoneum with splenic
laceration and extensor tendon injury of right hand. She was
inpatient from 7-4-13 to 12-4-13, for a period of 6 days .
77. But he failed to produce the documents to show
that the petitioner has taken up the treatment as out patient.
PW-16-doctor has also not produced any documents to show
that he collected the information from his colleague doctors.
The doctor has admitted that he has no documents to show
that he has conducted the surgery on the petitioner.
78. On perusal of above said cross-examination of
PW-16, it is clear that he is not personally treated doctor of
the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1
has argued that PW-16 is not a treated doctor of the
petitioner. Hence, a little importance has to be given to the
evidence of PW-16. On careful evaluation of the entire
evidence of PW-16 and also wound certificate and case sheet
of the petitioner, it is evident that this petitioner has
sustained above said injuries and hence, I determine the
whole body disability at 9%.
48 MVC.6519/13 ,6520/13,6522/13,6524
To 6527/13 &6521/13.
SCH-16
79. Though the petitioner examined his employer as
Pw-15, he has not produced any documents before this
Tribunal to show that the petitioner Smt.Mamatha was
working in his firm since from the year 2005 and drawing
salary of Rs.10,000/-p.m. Hence, no reliance can be placed
on the evidence of PW-15. The petitioner produced the
Election ID card, which was issued on 8-2-2012. According to
election ID card, she was born on 15-7-1992. Hence, the
petitioner was aged about 22 years as on the date of
accident. Even if the petitioner is considered as coolie and she
would have earned Rs.200/-per day and Rs.6000/-p.m.
80. Due to 9% disability, annual loss of income would
be Rs.540/pm.x12=6480/-p.a-. As the petitioner was aged
22 years, multiplier 18 is applicable for her age. If Rs.6840/-
is multiplied by 18, it would be Rs.1,16,640/- which can be
rounded of to Rs.1,17,000/-. Hence, I feel it is just and
proper to award a sum of Rs.1.17,000/- to the petitioner
towards loss of future income due to permanent disability.
81. The petitioner has sustained Blunt trauma abdomen
with haemoperitoneum with splenic laceration and extensor
tendon injury of right hand. She had been in the hospital as
49 MVC.6519/13 ,6520/13,6522/13,6524
To 6527/13 &6521/13.
SCH-16
inpatient for the period of 6 days she might have prevented
from doing her any job and earning any income for the period
of 3 months. Therefore, I feel it is just and proper to award a
sum of Rs.18,000/ at the rate of Rs.6000/-p.m.- to the
petitioner towards loss of income during the period of taking
treatment.
82. The petitioner has sustained Blunt trauma
abdomen with haemoperitoneum with splenic laceration and
extensor tendon injury of right hand. Therefore, she might
have suffered lot of pain, loss of amenities and comforts in
her life Hence, this entitled for compensation of Rs.10,000/-
towards loss of amenities and future happiness. The
petitioner is not entitled for the compensation under other
heads. So the petitioner is entitled for the compensation
under these following heads:-
1. Pain and sufferings Rs. 35,000/-
2 Attendant charges, Rs. 10,000/-
nutritious food,
conveyance and trans-
-portation charges
3 Medical Bills Rs. 1,28,000/-
4 Loss of future income due Rs. 1,17,000/-
to permanent disability
5 Loss of income during laid Rs. 18,000/-
of period
50 MVC.6519/13 ,6520/13,6522/13,6524
To 6527/13 &6521/13.
SCH-16
5 Loss of amenities & Rs. 10,000/-
happiness
Total Rs. 3,18,000/-
In total, the petitioner in MVC No.6527/13 is entitled
for the compensation of Rs.3,18,000/-.
Petitioner in MVC.6521/13:-
83. The petitioner in MVC.6521/13 has stated that in
the accident, she has sustained multiple fractures and she
under went surgery on her head, chest and further she has
suffered paralyses to her entire right side of the body. She
took treatment at M.S.Ramaiah hospital from 7-4-13 to 17-6-
2013 with restricted fracture movements and for complete
bed rest. As per the petition averments, she has spent
Rs.7,00,000/-for her medical, conveyance and nourishment
charges etc.
84. Prior to the accident, the petitioner was a house
wife. Due to the accidental injuries she cannot do any minute
work and hence she has to depend on other for her day today
activities. The discharge summary of M.S.Ramaiah hospital
reveals that on 17-4-13 she was admitted and discharged on
13-6-13. Further discharge summary reveals that the
petitioner has sustained multiple rib fracture and her wound
51 MVC.6519/13 ,6520/13,6522/13,6524
To 6527/13 &6521/13.
SCH-16
certificate at Ex.P.52 of M.S.Ramaiah hospital reveals that
she has sustained multiple fracture of left side rib and also
head injury, which in the opinion of the doctor are grievous in
nature. The discharge summary reveals , again on 17-4-13,
she was admitted to M.S.Ramaiah hospital as she was
complained vomiting. On examination of the petitioner, the
doctor has treated her conservatively from neureological side
and neuro surgical side. The mandible sysmphysis fracture
for which box wiring was done using Arch ban and wires. ICU
in situ was removed from left long VTVS reference was given
was followed up. The petitioner under went left thoractomy
and decortications with removed of clot for post traumate
clotted hemothorax with thickened pleura o 30-5-13. The
petitioner has taken further follow up treatment with
antibiotics. General nursing are, physiotherapy and change
tube was decannulated. Speech therapy initiated. Vascular
surgery reference taken for high INR. The disability reveals
that she was inpatient from 17-4-13 to 17-6-2013, for a
period of two months. Considering the injuries sustained by
the petitioner and number of days treatment taken by her as
an in-patient, I feel it is just and proper to award a sum of
52 MVC.6519/13 ,6520/13,6522/13,6524
To 6527/13 &6521/13.
SCH-16
Rs.40,000/- to the petitioner under the head pain and
sufferings.
85. The petitioner had been admitted in the hospital as
an inpatient for the period of two months from 17-4-2013 to
17-6-2013. at M.S.Ramaiah hospital. Hence, I feel it is just
and proper to award a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the petitioner
towards attendant charges, extra nutritious food and
transportation charges.
86. The petitioner has not produced the medical bills to
show that she has spent more than Rs.4,00,000/- towards
medical expenses. This fact is admitted by the petitioner in
her cross-examination that she has not produced any
documents before this Tribunal to show that she has spent
Rs.4,00,000/- towards her medicines and other expenses.
However, it cannot be said that, she was inpatient for nearly
two months at M.S.Ramaiah hospital. During the said period,
she had incurred medical expenses. Hence, even there are no
medical bills produced by the petitioner, this tribunal has
awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner towards
medical expenses.
53 MVC.6519/13 ,6520/13,6522/13,6524
To 6527/13 &6521/13.
SCH-16
87. The petitioner has not examined the doctor who
treated her. She has not produced any disability certificate.
Therefore, no compensation is awarded under the head loss of
future income due to permanent disability.
88. As per the petition averments, the petitioner was a
house wife as on the date of accident. Even though, the
petitioner is a house wife, she has to depend upon servants
for her day today activities as well as she has to maintain her
family. Hence, I feel it is just and proper to award a sum of
Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner towards loss of income during
the period of taking treatment.
89. The petitioner has sustained multiple fracture of
left side rib and also head injury. Therefore, she might have
suffered lot of pain, loss of amenities and comforts in her life
Hence, this entitled for compensation of Rs.15,000/-
towards loss of amenities and future happiness. The
petitioner is not entitled for the compensation under other
heads. So the petitioner is entitled for the compensation
under these following heads:-
1. Pain and sufferings Rs. 40,000/-
2 Attendant charges, Rs. 20,000/-
nutritious food,
54 MVC.6519/13 ,6520/13,6522/13,6524
To 6527/13 &6521/13.
SCH-16
conveyance and trans-
-portation charges
3 Medical Bills Rs. 25,000/-
4 Loss of income during laid Rs. 25,000/-
of period
5 Loss of amenities & Rs. 15,000/-
happiness
Total Rs. 1,25,000/-
In total, the petitioner in MVC No.6521/13 is entitled
for the compensation of Rs.1,25,000/-.
Interest:
90. Relying upon a judgment of the Apex Court reported
in 2013 AIR SCW 5375 (Minu Rout and others Vs. Satya
Pradyumna Mohapatra and others), with regard to interest at
the rate of 9% p.a. on the compensation amount, in para 13
of the judgment, the Apex Court held that Insurance
Company is also liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% p.a.
from the date of application till the date of payment and also
by following the principles laid down in (2011) 4 SCC 481 :
(AIR 2012 SC 100) (Municipal Council of Delhi Vs.
Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy). In view of the
above judgments with regard to the rate of interest, and also
it is settled law that while awarding interest on the
compensation amount, the Court has to take into account the
55 MVC.6519/13 ,6520/13,6522/13,6524
To 6527/13 &6521/13.
SCH-16
rate of interest of the nationalized bank and the rate of
interest at 9% cannot said to be on the higher side.
Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled to interest at the rate
of 9% p.a.
Liability:
91. Now, the question of liability to pay the
compensation has to be determined. The respondent No.1, in
its objections, has taken up the contention that the accident
in question was caused due to the rash and negligent driving
of KSRTC Bus. But both respondents have not led any
evidence before this Tribunal to prove the said contentions.
However, the oral as well as documentary evidence before this
Tribunal by the petitioners in all the petitions remained
unchallenged. The charge sheet was filed against the driver of
Tempo traveller bearing No.KA.03/D.793. Hence, in the
absence of any materials, the contention of respondent No.1
cannot be believed. The respondent No.1 in his objections has
admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with them
and the insurance policy was in force on the date of accident.
It is to be noted that first of all, the respondent No.1 has not
led any evidence as to seating capacity of offending vehicle.
56 MVC.6519/13 ,6520/13,6522/13,6524
To 6527/13 &6521/13.
SCH-16
Secondly, there are no petitions have been filed before this
Tribunal by other passengers except these eight petitions.
Except the said contention of the respondent No.1, they falls
to the ground. Therefore, it is quite clear that the insurance
policy and driving licence of the driver of respondent No.2 was
valid and was in force as on the date of accident. There is no
violation of policy conditions by the driver of respondent No.2.
Hence, it is the respondent No.1, who is liable and
responsible to pay the compensation to the petitioner.
Accordingly, I answer issue No.2 in all the petitions and
issue No.4 in MVC.6519/13 partly in the affirmative.
ISSUE No.3- IN ALL THE PETITIONS AND ISSUE
NO.5 IN MVC.6519/13:-
92. In view of my above findings, all the petitions are
deserves to be partly allowed. Hence, I proceed to pass the
following order:
ORDER
Both the petitions filed by the petitioners in MVC No.6519/13, 6520/13, 6522/13, 6524/13, 6525/13, 6526/13, 6527/13 and MVC.6521/13 U/s.166 of MV Act are partly allowed with costs.
57 MVC.6519/13 ,6520/13,6522/13,6524 To 6527/13 &6521/13.
SCH-16 The petitioner in MVC No.6519 is awarded with the compensation of Rs. 11,42,519/- (Rs. eleven lakh forty two thousand five hundred nineteen only) with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.
Compensation amount is apportioned as follows:-
Petitioner No.1 60% Petitioner No.2 - 40% Out of the compensation amount so apportioned in favour of the petitioner No.1&2, 50% is ordered to be invested in the name of petitioner No. 1 & 2 in any of the nationalized or scheduled bank of their choice for a period of 3 years. Remaining amount with entire interest is ordered to be released to them, by account payee cheques.
The petitioner in MVC No.6520/13 is awarded with the compensation of Rs.1,46,000/- (Rs. one lakh forty six thousand only) with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.
Out of the said compensation amount awarded in MVC.6520/13, 25% of the compensation amount with proportionate interest shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner as FD in any nationalized bank for a period of three years (without any encumbrance or premature withdrawal) with liberty to draw the accrued interest periodically and the remaining 75% amount with proportionate interest shall be released to the petitioner through A/c payee cheque on proper identification and verification.
The petitioner in MVC No.6522/13 is awarded with the compensation of Rs.67,000/-
58 MVC.6519/13 ,6520/13,6522/13,6524 To 6527/13 &6521/13.
SCH-16 (Rs. Sixty seven thousand only) with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.
The entire compensation shall be released to the petitioner through A/c payee cheque on proper identification and verification.
The petitioner in MVC No.6524/13 is awarded with the compensation of Rs.1,15,000/- (Rs. one lakh fifteen thousand only) with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.
Out of the said compensation amount awarded in MVC.6524/13, 25% of the compensation amount with proportionate interest shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner as FD in any nationalized bank for a period of three years (without any encumbrance or premature withdrawal) with liberty to draw the accrued interest periodically and the remaining 75% amount with proportionate interest shall be released to the petitioner through A/c payee cheque on proper identification and verification.
The petitioner in MVC No.6525/13 is awarded with the compensation of Rs.3,37,000/- (Rs. Three lakhs thirty seven thousand only) with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.
Out of the said compensation amount awarded in MVC.6525/13, 50% of the compensation amount with proportionate interest shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner as FD in any nationalized bank for a period of three years (without any encumbrance or premature withdrawal) with liberty to draw the accrued interest periodically and the remaining 50% amount with proportionate interest shall be 59 MVC.6519/13 ,6520/13,6522/13,6524 To 6527/13 &6521/13.
SCH-16 released to the petitioner through A/c payee cheque on proper identification and verification.
The petitioner in MVC No.6526/13 is awarded with the compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs. Three lakhs only) with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.
Out of the said compensation amount awarded in MVC.6526/13, 50% of the compensation amount with proportionate interest shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner as FD in any nationalized bank for a period of three years (without any encumbrance or premature withdrawal) with liberty to draw the accrued interest periodically and the remaining 50% amount with proportionate interest shall be released to the petitioner through A/c payee cheque on proper identification and verification.
The petitioner in MVC No.6527/13 is awarded with the compensation of Rs.3,18,000/- (Rs. Three lakhs eighteen thousand only) with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.
Out of the said compensation amount awarded in MVC.6527/13, 50% of the compensation amount with proportionate interest shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner as FD in any nationalized bank for a period of three years (without any encumbrance or premature withdrawal) with liberty to draw the accrued interest periodically and the remaining 50% amount with proportionate interest shall be released to the petitioner through A/c payee cheque on proper identification and verification.
The petitioner in MVC No.6521/13 is awarded with the compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- (Rs. one lakh twenty five thousand only) with 60 MVC.6519/13 ,6520/13,6522/13,6524 To 6527/13 &6521/13.
SCH-16 interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.
Out of the said compensation amount awarded in MVC.6521/13, 25% of the compensation amount with proportionate interest shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner as FD in any nationalized bank for a period of three years (without any encumbrance or premature withdrawal) with liberty to draw the accrued interest periodically and the remaining 75% amount with proportionate interest shall be released to the petitioner through A/c payee cheque on proper identification and verification.
The respondents No.1 and 2 in all the petitions are jointly and severally liable to pay the award amount. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is fixed on the respondent No.1 -Insurance Company and is directed to pay the compensation amount within two months from the date of this order.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-in each petition.
Office to keep the original judgment in the file of MVC No. 6519/13 and copy of the same in the file of MVC Nos.6520/13, 6522/13, 6524/13, 6525/13, 6526/13.6527/13 and 6521/13.
Draw award accordingly in all the petitions.
******* (Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced in the open court on this the 29th day of February 2016) (SATISH.J.BALI) MEMBER:MACT, BANGALORE 61 MVC.6519/13 ,6520/13,6522/13,6524 To 6527/13 &6521/13.
SCH-16 ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS:
PW.1 : M.Sandeep
PW.2 : Smt.Renuka.M.
PW.3 : S.Nagaraju
PW.4 : Smt.Suvarna
PW.5 : R.Pradeep Kumar
PW.6 : Smt.Latha.N.
PW.7 : Smt.Mamatha.N.
PW.8 : Kamalamma/R.Kamala
PW.9 : A.George Pinto in MVC No.6519/13
PW.10 : A.George Pinto in MVC No.6520/13
PW.11 : A.George Pinto in MVC No.6524/13
PW.12 : A.George Pinto in MVC No.6525/13
PW.13 : A.George Pinto in MVC No.6526/13
PW.14 : Mariyappa in MVC 6521/13
PW.15 : M.Sugirtha Raj in MVC No.6522 &
6527
PW.16 : Govindaraju in MVC No.6519/13 &
6527/13
PW.17 : C.S.Gopinath in MVC No.6519/13 &
6527/13
PW.18 : Girish in MVC No.6519/13 & 6527/13
PW.19 : Dr.Krishan Prasad in MVC No.6519/13
& 6527/13
PW.20 : Dr.M.K.Sharma in MVC No.6519/13
6526/13 & 6525/13.
DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS:
Ex.P.1 : Copy of FIR
Ex.P.2 : Copy of Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.3 : Copy of Sketch
Ex.P.4 : Copy of Statement
Ex.P.5 : Copy of Letter
Ex.P.6 : Copy of Inquest Mahazar
62 MVC.6519/13 ,6520/13,6522/13,6524
To 6527/13 &6521/13.
SCH-16
Ex.P.7 : Copy of Postmortem
Ex.P.8 : Copy of Charge Sheet
Ex.P.9 & 10 : Voter ID Cads
Ex.P.11 : 45 Medical Bills
Ex.P.12 : Medical bill
Ex.P.13 : 3 Prescriptions
Ex.P.14 : Copy of Wound Certificate
Ex.P.15 : 19 Medical Bills
Ex.P.16 : Inpatient Bill
Ex.P.17 : 6 Prescriptions
Ex.P.18 : Copy of Wound Certificate
Ex.P.19 : 12 Medical Bills
Ex.P.20 : X-ray, Blood Reports
Ex.P.21 ; Hospital Slip
Ex.P.22 : Election Identity Card
Ex.P.23 : Copy of Wound Certificate
Ex.P.24 : Voter ID Car
Ex.P.25 : 12 Medical Bills
Ex.P.26 : 8 Prescriptions
Ex.P.27 : Copy of MVI Report
Ex.P.28 : Copy of Wound Certificate
Ex.P.29 : 33 Medical Bills
Ex.P.30 : 28 Prescriptions
Ex.P.31 : 6 X-rays
Ex.P.32 : ECG
Ex.P.33 : MLC Extract
Ex.P.34 : Wound Certificate
Ex.P.35 : 28 Medical Bills
Ex.P.36 : 9 Prescriptions
Ex.P.37 : 16 X-rays
Ex.P.38 : Wound Certificate
Ex.P.39 : 29 Medical Bills
Ex.P.40 : 13 Prescriptions
Ex.P.41 : 5 X-rays
Ex.P.42 : Voter I.D.Card
Ex.P.43 : Voter I.D.Card
Ex.P.44 : Voter I.D.Card
Ex.P.45 : Voter I.D.Card
Ex.P.46 : Case Sheet in MVC No.6519/13
Ex.P.47 : Case Sheet in MVC No.6520/13
Ex.P.48 : Case Sheet in MVC No.6524/13
Ex.P.49 : Case Sheet in MVC No.6525/13
63 MVC.6519/13 ,6520/13,6522/13,6524
To 6527/13 &6521/13.
SCH-16
Ex.P.50 : Case Sheet in MVC No.6526/13
Ex.P.51 : Voter ID Card
Ex.P.52 : Wound Certificate
Ex.P.53 : Authorization Letter
Ex.P.54 : Outpatient Card
Ex.P.55 : Outpatient Card
Ex.P.56 : Inpatient Card
Ex.P.57 : Inpatient Card
Ex.P.58 : 10 X-rays
Ex.P.59 : 2 CT Scan
Ex.P.60 : Authorization letter 2 in nos
Ex.P.61 : Inpatient record of Nagaraj
Ex.P.62 : Outpatient record of Nagaraj
Ex.P.63 : Inpatient record of Mamatha
Ex.P.64 : Outpatient record of Mamatha
Ex.P.65 : X-ray films of Nagaraj
Ex.P.66 : Outpatient Record
Ex.P.67 : Authorization Letter
Ex.P.68 : Registration Certificate
Ex.P.69 : Form Vat
Ex.P.70 : Death Certificate
Ex.P.71 : Form No.4
Ex.P.72 : Discharge Summary
Ex.P.73 : Clinical Notes
Ex.P.74 : Discharge Summary
Ex.P.75 : X-ray film
Ex.P.76 : 3-X-ray films
Ex.P.77 : 4-X-ray films
Witnesses examined on behalf of respondents:
Nil Documents marked on behalf of the respondents:
Nil (SATISH.J.BALI) MEMBER:MACT, Bangalore.