Bangalore District Court
Sri.Pathalappa @ Patalappa vs The National Insurance on 2 June, 2015
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2nd DAY OF JUNE 2015
(SCCH-25)
Present:Sri.DHARMAGIRI RAMASWAMY
M.A., LL.M.
XXI A.C.M.M. & XXIII A.S.C.J, Bengaluru.
MVC No.6914/2012
PETITIONER: Sri.Pathalappa @ Patalappa
S/o. Venkataswamappa
Aged about 50 years,
R/at No.198
Anjaneyaswamy temple
street, Chikkajala Hobli
Bangalore.
R/at No.216, Chikkajala,
Bangalore north taluk,
Bangalore district.
V/S
RESPONDENTS: 1. The National Insurance
company Ltd., Motor
Accident Claims Hub
No.144, 2nd floor, Subharam
complex, MG Road,
Bangalore-01.
2. Chandrashekar.C.B.
S/o. late C.Basavarajaiah
Kadiganahalli gate, Chandru
Idli hotel
Opp: KNS Convention hall,
Bettahalasoor post
2 MVC 6914//2012
SCCH-25
Bangalore 562 157.
.......
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed this petition under Sec.166 of the M.V.Act seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in a road accident.
2. In brief facts of the petitioner are as under:
On 04.10.2012 at about 6.30 p.m., the petitioner was traveling as a rider in his two-wheeler bearing CKW-4116 on C.R. weighers road near Kadiganagage gate, at that time the driver of the Car bearing Reg.No. KA-02-Z-9436 came in a rash and negligent manner endangering to human life and dashed against the petitioner. Thereby petitioner sustained injuries. Immediately petitioner was shifted to N.R.V. hospital, Bangalore. Therefore the petitioner spent Rs.40,000/- towards medical treatment, nourishment and conveyance and attendant charges.
The Chikkajala police filed a case against the driver of the offending vehicle in their PS crime No.95/2012 punishable u/s.279, 337 of IPC.
3 MVC 6914//2012 SCCH-25 As on the date of the accident the petitioner was aged about 50 years working as a labourer and earning an amount of Rs.8,000/- per month. Eventhough he undergone the treatment he cannot properly walk, sit, stand, squat, work and earn an amount of Rs.8,000/-p.m. Respondents are the insurer and RC holder both are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation and prayed for compensation.
3. Respondent No.1 appeared through their counsel and filed objections. Wherein stated that, the application filed by the petitioner is not maintainable in the eye of law. Neither the police nor the RC holder informs the accident. It is false that, the driver of the offending vehicle drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner endangering to human life and caused the accident and disputed the age, income, avocation and expenses. Further admitted that, the policy was in existence as on the date of the accident and prayed for rejection of the application with cost.
Respondent No.2 placed ex-parte 4 MVC 6914//2012 SCCH-25
4. Based on the said pleadings the following issues are framed:
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, he has sustained injuries on 4.10.2012 at about 6.30 p.m., in C.R.Weighers road, near Kadiganahalli gate, due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-02-Z-
9436 as alleged in the petition?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for Compensation? If so, what is the quantum? From whom payable?
3. What order or award?
5. Petitioner to prove his case, he has examined himself as PW.1 and got marked 9 documents under Exs.P.1 to P.9 and one more witness examined as PW.2 and got marked 4 documents under Exs.P.10 & P.11 and closed their side. Whereas the respondent no.1 examined one witness as RW.1 and got marked 3 documents under Exs.R.1 to R.3 on their behalf and closed their side.
6. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for both the parties.
7. My findings on the above issues are as follows:
5 MVC 6914//2012 SCCH-25 Issue Nos.1 & 2: In the affirmative.
Rs.3,80,255/-- payable by the respondent No.1 and the entire cost of knee replacement to the concerned hospital where the petitioner undergo the knee replacement subject to the production of bills.
Issue No.3: As per the final order, for the following:
REASONS
8. Issue Nos.1 & 2:
PW.1 stated in his examination-in-chief that, on 04.10.2012 at about 6.30 p.m., the petitioner was traveling as a rider in his two-wheeler bearing CKW-4116 on C.R. weighers road near Kadiganagage gate, at that time the driver of the Car bearing Reg.No. KA-02-Z-9436 came in a rash and negligent manner endangering to human life and dashed against the petitioner. Thereby petitioner sustained injuries.
Immediately petitioner was shifted to N.R.V. hospital, Bangalore. Therefore the petitioner spent Rs.40,000/- towards 6 MVC 6914//2012 SCCH-25 medical treatment, nourishment and conveyance and attendant charges.
The Chikkajala police filed a case against the driver of the offending vehicle in their PS crime No.95/2012 punishable u/s.279, 337 of IPC.
As on the date of the accident the petitioner was aged about 50 years working as a labourer and earning an amount of Rs.8,000/- per month. Eventhough he undergone the treatment he cannot properly walk, sit, stand, squat, work and earn an amount of Rs.8,000/-p.m. Respondents are the insurer and RC holder both are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation and prayed for compensation. In support of their oral evidence they have filed 9 documents at Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.9.
PW.2 stated that the petitioner sustained injury with history of RTA and filed 2 documents under Exs.P.10 & P.11.
9. Respondent No.1 appeared through their counsel and filed objections and examined its official as RW.1 . RW.1 stated in his evidence that, the application filed by the petitioner is not maintainable in the eye of law. It is false that, 7 MVC 6914//2012 SCCH-25 the driver of the offending vehicle drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner endangering to human life and caused the accident and disputed the age, income, avocation and expenses. Further admitted that, the policy was in existence as on the date of the accident and prayed for rejection of the application with cost.
In support of their oral evidence petitioner has filed 3 documents under Exs.R.1 to R.3
10. On perusal of the Ex.P1 FIR, Ex.P.2 complaint, Ex.P.3 charge sheet, Ex.P.4 spot sketch Ex.P.5 spot mahazar, Ex.P.6 IMV report, Ex.P.7 wound certificate reveal that charge sheet is against the driver of the offending vehicle. The respondent has not examined the eye witness. The RW.1 is the hear say witness stated on police reports. It is thus I believe the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2. The petitioner proved that the driver of the offending vehicle drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner endanger to human life and caused the accident. Therefore the petitioner sustained the injury and undergone treatment. Accordingly, I have answered issue no.1 in the affirmative.
8 MVC 6914//2012 SCCH-25
11. PW.1 further stated that as on the date of the accident the petitioner was aged about 50 years working as a labourer and earning an amount of Rs.8,000/- per month. Due to accident he cannot properly walk, sit, stand, squat, work and earn an amount of Rs.8,000/-p.m. Respondents are the insurer and RC holder both are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation and prayed for compensation.
12. PW.2 stated that, the petitioner was admitted to their hospital with the history of RTA on 4.10.12. On examination petitioner has sustained fracture of upper end of right tibia, laceration over right leg, abrasion over forehead and upper limbs and injury no.1 is grievous in nature and injuries 2 and 3 are simple in nature.
Again he examined the petitioner on 26.3.14 for the assessment of disability. The petitioner complains of deformity of right knee, pain the right knee joint, not able to stand or walk for long hours, not able to sit in same posture for long hours, difficulty in sitting cross legged on floor, difficulty in climbing up down the stairs, not able to lift weight, etc. and 9 MVC 6914//2012 SCCH-25 opined 20% wholebody disability. Petitioner required knee replacement which cost of Rs. 1 ½ lakhs to Rs.2 lakhs.
In support of their oral evidence petitioner has filed 2 documents under Exs.P.10 & P.11.
Whereas the respondent no.1 examined RW.1. RW.1 admitted the policy and accident and disputed his age, income and avocation, treatment and expense and there was 3 days delay. PW.1 stated that fracture of end of tibia. PW.2 stated facture of upper end of condyle. This inconsistency shows the petitioner has not sustained such injury and prayed for rejection of the applications.
In support of their oral evidence they have 3 documents under Exs.R.1 R.3.
13. On perusal of the wound certificate Ex.P.7, case sheet Ex.P.10, x-ray Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.8 prescriptions, Ex.P.9 medical bills shows that the petitioner has sustained injuries in a RTA. The PW.1 & PW.2 are not elicited in their cross- examination . The RW.1 admits the accident & insurance policy and disputed the injury. Ex.P.7 to Ex.P.11 are not rebut the evidence of RW.1. I believe the evidence of PW1 & PW2 .
10 MVC 6914//2012 SCCH-25 Considering the wound certificate and case sheets the petitioner sustained fracture of tibia bone and underwent the treatment at NRV hospital. Due to injury petitioner underwent the treatment. During treatment as well as laid up period he got pain and suffering. Therefore, the tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- under the heads of pain and suffering. Ex.P.9 reveal that petitioner has spent an amount of Rs.26,695/- for medical expense. The case sheet, prescription corroborate with medical bills, it is thus the tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.26,695/- under the heads of medical expenses.
PW.1 has stated that as on the date of the accident the petitioner was aged about 50 years working as a labourer and earning an amount of Rs.8,000/-p.m. PW.2 opined 20% disability to the whole body. As per the Sarala Verma's case, age of 50 years, multiplier applicable is 13. I believe the evidence of PWs.1 and PW.2 and the respondent evidence is not sufficient to deny the compensation. Considering the petitioner evidence, it is thus the tribunal has awarded just compensation as such Rs.8,000 x 12 x 13 x 20% = Rs.2,49,600/- is awarded 11 MVC 6914//2012 SCCH-25 under the heads of loss of future income. Another 10% out of loss of future income i.e. Rs.24,960/- is awarded under the heads of loss of amenities and happiness. Due to accident the wound required 3 months for healing up. Therefore during that, period he lost income, it has to be compensated. Rs.8,000/-x3=Rs.24,000/- is awarded under the heads of loss of income during laid up period. Considering evidence of PWs.1 and 2, the tribunal is awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards attendant, conveyance, food and nourishment. The PW2 stated that petitioner required to undergo total knee replacement which cost Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/-. Considering the evidence of PW.2, the petitioner sustained injury without his fault. Therefore, in the interest of justice and equity the tribunal awarded entire replacement cost if the petitioner undergo the knee replacement. So the petitioner is entitled total compensation as under:
1. Pain and suffering : Rs. 50,000/-
2. Loss of future income : Rs. 2,49,600/-
3. Loss of amenities : Rs. 24,960/-
4. Loss of income during
12 MVC 6914//2012 SCCH-25 Laid up period : Rs. 24,000/-
5. Medical expenses : Rs. 26,695/-
6. Attendant charges : Rs. 5,000/-
TOTAL : Rs. 3,80,255/- and the entire cost of knee replacement to the concerned hospital where the petitioner undergo the knee replacement subject to the production of bills.
Respondent No.2 is the RC holder, Respondent No.1 is the insurer and policy was in existence and charge sheet was against the driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, both are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation with interest. Accordingly I have answered issue Nos.1 & 2 in the affirmative.
14. Issue No.3:
In view of answering issue nos.1 and 2, as above, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed.
The petitioner is entitled for compensation an amount of Rs.3,80,255/- along 13 MVC 6914//2012 SCCH-25 with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of depositing the amount as well as entire cost of knee replacement to the concerned hospital where the petitioner undergo the knee replacement subject to the production of bills.
Respondent Nos.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.
Respondent No.1 is the insurer order to deposit the compensation amount within sixty days from the date of award.
After deposit, Rs.2,00,000/- order deposit in any N/S Bank for a period of one year and remaining amount shall be released in favour of the petitioner by way of account payee cheque after obtaining vouchers, receipts and proper identification as per finance rules.
14 MVC 6914//2012 SCCH-25 Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.500/-
Draw decree accordingly.
(Typed to my online dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 2nd day of June 2015).
(DHARMAGIRI RAMASWAMY) XXI A.C.M.M.& XXIII A.S.C.J., Bengaluru.
.....
ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined for petitioner:
PW.1 Pathalappa PW.2 Dr.V.Gopal
List of Documents marked for Petitioner:
Ex.P.1 FIR, Ex.P.2 Complaint, Ex.P.3 Charge sheet, Ex.P.4 Spot Panchanama Ex.P.5 Mahazar Ex.P.6 IMV report Ex.P.7 Wound certificate Ex.P.8 Prescriptions (21) Ex.P.9 Medical Bills (11)
15 MVC 6914//2012 SCCH-25 Ex.P.10 Case sheet Ex.P.12 X-rays (4) List of Witnesses examined for respondent/s:
RW.1 G.Shivakumar List of documents exhibited for Respondent:
Ex.R.1 Copy of insurance policy
Ex.R.2 Acknowledgment
Ex.R.3 True copy of IMV report
(DHARMAGIRI RAMASWAMY)
XXI A. C.M.M.,& XXIII ASCJ
Bengaluru.