Bangalore District Court
Shivu.T vs Mayanna R.S on 5 January, 2024
KABC020204692018
IN THE COURT OF XIII ADDL. SMALL CAUSES AND ACMM
AND ADDL. MACT., BENGALURU, (SCCH-15)
PRESENT: Smt. KUMARI SUJATHA.
B.Com., LL.B.,
XIII Addl. Small Causes Judge,
ACMM, Court of Small Causes
& Member,MACT15, Bengaluru.
MVC No.4816/2018
Dated this the 5th day of January 2024
Petitioner: Shivu T., S/o Thimmesha,
Aged about 20 years,
R/at Abalavadi Village,
Koppa Hobli,
Maddur Taluk,
Mandya District.
(By Sri. K.T.Madhu, Adv.)
Versus
Respondents : 1) Sri. Mayanna R.S.
S/o Shankaregowda, Major,
R/at No.99, Rajegowdana Doddi
Village, Maddur Taluk,
SCCH 15 2 MVC No.4816/2018
Mandya District.
(Owner of Tipper Lorry bearing Reg.
No.KA11B1539)
(By Sri. Devaraju K., Adv.)
2) The Deputy General Manager,
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
Regional Office, No.44/45,
Leo Shopping Complex,
Residency Road Cross,
Bengaluru.
(Policy No.442600/31/2016/30948
valid from 31.03.2016 to 30.03.2017)
(By Sri. B.R.Venkatesh Kamath, Adv.)
3) Managing Director,
Owner cum internal Insurance Fund
of the KSRTC Bus bearing Reg.No.
KA11F0036, Sarige Bhavana,
K.H. Double Road, Shanthinagara,
Bengaluru27.
(By Sri. Mahadevaiah., Adv.)
*****
:JUDGMENT:
This Claim Petition is filed by the Petitioner against the Respondents under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act SCCH 15 3 MVC No.4816/2018 seeking Compensation of ₹1,25,00,000/ for the injuries sustained in a Road Traffic accident.
2. The substance of averments made in the Petition is as under:
That on 16.03.2017 the Petitioner was travelling in the KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA11F0036 from Maddur towards Koppa and the Petitioner was seated at the right side seat of the KSRTC bus and at about 9.45 on Maddur - Koppa main road, little distance from Niluvagilu gate in front of land of one Channegowda, at that place there was little curve towards left side and at the same time, one Tipper Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA11B1539, driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed and also in a zig zag manner, endangering to human life and without observing the road curve, drove in the same speed towards Maddur by rubbing the right side portion of the KSRTC Bus and the bus was crashed and the driver of the bus took the bus towards SCCH 15 4 MVC No.4816/2018 the left side and dashed against the tree and stopped. In this impact, the Petitioner's right hand was crushed and pressed and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, the Petitioner was shifted to PHC Besagarahalli Hospital and after first aid, he was shifted to District hospital, Mandya. Thereafter, he was taken to Apollo BGS hospital, Mysore wherein he was admitted as an inpatient. He had spent more than Rs.10,00,000/ towards treatment, conveyance and nourishment charges.
3. Prior to the date of accident, the Petitioner was hale and healthy and he was aged about 20 years and was working as Apprentice at KAVIKA and was earning Rs.8,000/ per month. The Respondent No.1 is the owner of the offending Tipper lorry, the Respondent No. 2 is the insurer of the offending Tipper lorry and the Respondent No.3 is the owner cum internal insurer of the KSRTC Bus. Hence, all SCCH 15 5 MVC No.4816/2018 Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Petitioner. Hence, this Petition.
4. In pursuance of service of notice to the Respondents, Respondents appeared before the Court through their respective Counsels and the Respondent No.1 to 3 have filed Objections to the main petition.
The Respondent No.1 in his Objection Statement to the main Petition has denied the age, avocation and income of the Petitioner and also denied the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending Tipper Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA11B1539. Further, he denied the injuries sustained by the Petitioner in the accident and also the amount spent for the medical treatment of the Petitioner. Further he stated that his vehicle was insured with the Respondent No.2. Hence, he is not liable to pay compensation to the Petitioner and the Respondent No.2 is liable to pay compensation to the Petitioner. Hence, among these and other SCCH 15 6 MVC No.4816/2018 grounds the Respondent No.1 has prayed to dismiss the Petition against him.
5. The Respondent No.2 in its Objection Statement contended that the Petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Further, it has denied the age, avocation and income of the Petitioner and the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and also the injuries sustained by the Petitioner and the expenses incurred for the treatment. Further it contended that the owner of the Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA11B1539, permitted the vehicle to drive in a public place without a valid RC, Permit and fitness certificate. Further it contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license and thereby violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, it is not liable to pay the compensation to the Petitioner and has prayed to dismiss the Petition against it.
SCCH 15 7 MVC No.4816/2018
6. The Respondent No.3 in its Objection Statement denied the age, avocation and income of the Petitioner and also the injuries sustained by the Petitioner in the said accident and also the expenses incurred for the treatment of the Petitioner. Further it denied the said accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending KSRTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA11F0036 and contended that the said accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tipper lorry by its driver. Further it contended that due to humanity, the Respondent No.3 Corporation has paid Rs.4,42,206/ towards medical expenses. Further, it contended that the driver of the Tipper lorry has pleaded guilty before Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Maddur and paid fine. Therefore it is not liable to pay compensation to the Petitioner. On these grounds, Respondent No.3 has prayed to dismiss the petition against it.
7. On the rival Pleadings my Learned Predecessor has framed the following Issues:
SCCH 15 8 MVC No.4816/2018
ISSUES
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that, he has sustained injuries due to RTA alleged to have been occurred on 16.03.2017 at about 9.45 a.m., on Koppa - Maddur main road, Little distance at Nilavagilu gate, near Channegowda land, Maraliga gate, due to the rash and negligent driver of Tipper Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA11B1539 and KSRTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA11F0036?
2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what amount and from whom?
3. What Order or Award?
8. In order to prove the case of the Petitioner, the Petitioner got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked 18 documents as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P18. Further, he examined one witness as PW.2 and got marked 2 documents as per Ex.P19 and Ex.P.20 and closed his side evidence. On the other SCCH 15 9 MVC No.4816/2018 hand, Respondent No.3 has examined its bus driver as RW.1 and got marked 3 documents as per Ex.R1 to 3 and the Respondent No.2 has examined its Deputy Manager as RW.2 and got marked 2 documents at Ex.R4 and 5 and the Respondent No.3 has examined its Officer as RW.3 and got marked 6 documents at Ex.R6 to 12 and closed their side evidence. Respondent No.1 did not choose to lead evidence.
9. Having heard the arguments by the learned Counsels for both sides and upon perusal of the depositions, documents exhibited and materials available on record, my answer to the above Issues are as under:
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative.
Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative
Issue No.3 : As per the Final Order,
for the following :
REASONS
10. Issue No.1 : It is the case of the Petitioner that, he had sustained grievous injuries in the Road Traffic Accident SCCH 15 10 MVC No.4816/2018 that occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending Tipper Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA11B1539 and KSRTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA11F0036 by their drivers.
11. On the other hand, the Respondents have denied the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the drivers of the offending vehicles.
12. In order to prove the case of the Petitioner, he got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked 18 documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.18. He also examined one witness by name Dr.Nagaraj B.N as P.W.2 and got marked 2 documents at Ex.P 19 and Ex.P20. P.W.1 has reiterated the Petition averments in his chiefaffidavit. Ex.P1 to 4 and Ex.P10 & 11 are the True copies of FIR, Spot mahazar, IMV report, Wound certificate, Complaint and Chargesheet.
13. Upon going through Ex.P1 & Ex.P10 i.e., FIR and Complaint shows that on the complaint lodged by one Prakash before Besagarahalli Police Station, the PSI of the concerned SCCH 15 11 MVC No.4816/2018 Police Station has registered the case against the driver of the KSRTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA11F0036 for the offences punishable under sec. 279, 337 of IPC. Ex.P2 is the Spot mahazar which shows that the concerned police had drawn mahazar at the spot in the presence of panchas. Ex.P3 is the 2 IMV reports which shows that the accident does not occurred due to any mechanical defects of the vehicles. Ex.P.4 is the Wound Certificate of the Petitioner which shows that the Petitioner had sustained the grievous injuries. Ex.P11 is the Certified copy of the Charge sheet which shows that after thorough investigation, the PSI of Besagarahalli Police Station has submitted Chargesheet against the driver of the Tipper lorry bearing Reg.No.KA11B1539 for the offences punishable under Sec. 279, 337 and 338 of IPC and U/s 187 of IMV Act.
14. Upon going through the Chargesheet i.e., Ex.P11 Column No.17 reads as under:
" ಕಲ 279, 337, 338 ಐ.ಪ.ಸ ಕಡ 187 ಐ.ಎಎ.ವ ಕಯದ ಬಸಗರಹಳಳ ಪಲಲಸ ಠಣಯ ಸರಹದದ ಗ ಸರದ SCCH 15 12 MVC No.4816/2018 ನಲವಗಲ ಗಟನಎದ ಮಎದಗದತ ಚನನ ಲಗಡನ ಜಮಲನನ ನರದ ಕಪಪ ಮದದ ರ ಮಖಖ ರಸಸ ಯಲಲ ಸಕಕ 4 ರವರ ಕಎ11ಎಫ0036 ಕ ಎಸ ಆರ ಟ ಸ ಬಸಸ ನಲಲ ಸಕಕ 2, 3 ಮತಸ 5 ರವರನನ ಕರಸಕಎಡ ಚಲನ ಮಡಕಎಡ ಕಪಪ ದ ಕಡಗ ಹಲಗತಸ ದದ ಗ ಅಎಕಣ 12 ರಲಲ ಕಡ ಆರಲಪಯ ಕಎ11ಬ1539 ರ ಟಪಪ ರನನ ಅತಲ ವಗ ಮತಸ ಅಜಗರಕತಯಎದ ಚಲನ ಮಡಕಎಡ ಮದದ ರ ಕಡಗ ಹಲಗಲ ಈ ರಸಸ ಯ ತರವರವದನನ ಗಮನಸದ ಬದವನ ಬದ ಹಗ ಸಕಕ 5 ರವರ ಕ ಎಸ ಆರ ಟ ಸ ಬಸಸ ನ ಬಲ ಭಗಕಕ ಗದದ ಹರಟ ಹಲಗದದ , ಇದರಎದ ಸಕಕ 4 ರವರ ರಸಸ ಯ ಎಡ ಭಗದ ಮರಕಕ ಗದದ ನಲಲ ಸದದ ಇದರ ಪರಣಮ ಬಸಸ ನ ಒಳಗಡ ಇದದ ಸಕಕ 2 ರವರಗ ಬಲಗನ ಮಳ ಮರದ ತಲವವ ಸಸ ರಪದ ಗಯವಎಟಗರವದ ಹಗ ಸಕಕ 3 ರವರ ತಲಗ ಪಟಟ ಗ ಸಮನಖ ಸಸ ರಪದ ಗಯವಎಟಗರವದ ಹಗ ಬಸಸ ಸಹ ಜಖಗಎಡದದ ಆರಲಪಯ ಟಪಪ ರನನ ನಲಲ ಸ ಸಕಕ 2 ಮತಸ 3 ರವರನನ ಉಪಚರಸದ ಪಲಲಸರಗ ಮಹತ ನಲಡದ ಹರಟ ಹಲಗದದ ಸಕಕ 5 ರವರ ಬಸಸ ನನ ತಕಣ ಜಗರಕತಯಎದ ಬಸಸ ನನ ರಸಸ ಯ ಎಡ ಭಗಕಕ ತರಗಸದದದ ಪಕದಲಲ ಟಪಪ ರ ಬಸಸ ನ ಮಎಭಗಕಕ ಗದದ ಇನನ ಹಚಚ ನ ಸವ ನಲವಎಟಗತಸ ದದ ದ ತನಖಯಎದ ಮತಸ ಸಕಕ ಖ ದರಗಳಎದ ದಢಪಟಟ ರತಸ ದ. ಆದದ ರಎದ ಆರಲಪಯ ಮಲ ಮಲಕ ಎಡ ಕಲ ರಲತಖ ದಲಷರಲಪಣ ಪತವ ".
SCCH 15 13 MVC No.4816/2018
15. Ex.P7 is the Discharge summary which shows that the Petitioner was admitted as an inpatient from 16.03.2017 to 24.03.2017, 26.07.2017 to 28.07.2017 and 17.01.2018 to 18.01.2018.
16. Further, P.W.1 has examined Dr.Nagaraj B.N as P.W.2 and they also reiterated about the injuries sustained by the Petitioner in a RTA.
It is to be noted here that there is no dispute about the accident. According to the Petitioner the alleged accident has been occurred by the rash and negligent driving of both KSRTC bus and Tipper lorry. Admittedly, at the time of lodging the Complaint by one Prakash who is alleged to be an eye witness to the accident has stated in the Complaint that the driver of the KSRTC bus had driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner and took his bus to the left side in the curve and dashed to the tree and at the same time one lorry which came from Koppa side rubbed to the right side of the standing SCCH 15 14 MVC No.4816/2018 bus. So, at the first instance, the said Complaint was lodged against the driver of the KSRTC bus on the same date of the accident. However, the Charge sheet was filed against the driver of the Tipper lorry. It is pertinent to note here that the Respondent No.3 has examined its driver by name Honnegowda Y.N as RW.1 and he has reiterated the Objection Statement contentions of the Respondent No.3 and he deposed that the said accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tipper lorry. The Respondent No.2 has examined its Deputy Manager by name Gurudatt as RW.2 and also examined the Station Master of KSRTC bus by name S.C. Shyamanna as RW.3.
17. It is the argument of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.3 that the connected matters of this case was compromised before Lok Adalath at JMFC Court, Mandya, wherein the Respondent No.2 and the Petitioners of the concerned cases had entered into Settlement. He also relied on SCCH 15 15 MVC No.4816/2018 Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 i.e., Certified copy of the Order sheet in MVC No.443/2018 and claim petition and Objection Statement. However, though the Petitioner in MVC No.445/2018 had entered into settlement with Respondent No.2, the Petitioner of this case has contested the matter. Hence, this Tribunal has to decide about the negligence by look into the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence led by the parties and then come to conclusion on whose fault the said accident has been occurred.
18. It is to be worth to note here that the said accident has been occurred in the day time i.e., 9.45 a.m. The Spot mahazar i.e., Ex.P2 shows that the accident spot is the Maddur - Koppa main road and the width of the said Tar road is 21 feet. Further, there was 10 feet each mud footpath road on the either side and the Neelgiri trees were situated. So, the Spot Mahazar recitals shows there was 10 feet mud footpath road after the Tar road on either side. The Petitioner has not SCCH 15 16 MVC No.4816/2018 produced the Sketch to show there is a curve in the said road. So, in the day time, one could see the vehicle which comes from the opposite direction also. IMV reports shows that there was damages to the front and rear side of the KSRTC bus and the front right side of the Tipper lorry. So, it is crystal clear that though the driver of the Tipper lorry came with rash and negligently and while the KSRTC bus driver in order to avoid the accident took his bus to the left side and then the body of the Tipper lorry rubbed to the KSRTC bus and the KSRTC bus dashed to the tree and thereby the Petitioner and other co passengers had sustained injuries, there is also some extent of Contributory Negligence on the part of the KSRTC bus driver also. The materials available on record shows the driver of the Tipper lorry Contributes his major negligence towards the alleged accident. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the driver of the Tipper lorry contributes 90% of the Negligence towards the said accident and the driver of the KSRTC bus SCCH 15 17 MVC No.4816/2018 contributes 10% of the Negligence towards the accident. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.1 is "in the Affirmative"
19. Issue No. 2: As the Petitioner has proved that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicles by its drivers, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation.
20. In the Petition, the Petitioner has shown his age as 20 years. Further, in the Aadhar card and Marks card i.e., Ex.P14 & 15, the date of birth of the Petitioner was shown as 09.05.1998 respectively. The accident took place on 16.03.2017. Hence, the age of the Petitioner, as on the date of accident was 19 years and the same is to be taken for consideration.
21. Further, the Petitioner has averred that, he was studied ITI Fitter and working as Apprenticeship in KAVIKA (Karnataka Vidyuth Company, Bengaluru) and was earning Rs.8,000/ per month. In this regard he has produced Ex.P13 SCCH 15 18 MVC No.4816/2018 i.e., Pay Slip. Upon going through the same, the gross earnings shows Rs.4,554.30/ and the said document is Apprentice pay slip for February 2017. Further the PW.1 has produced Ex.P15 i.e., Marks card of ITI which showing his qualification. Therefore it is proper to take the notional income at Rs.5,000/ per month for the purpose of assessment of compensation.
22. With this background, the quantum of compensation to which the Petitioner is entitled may be adjudicated. For the sake of convenience, discussion may be had under following heads :
I. COMPENSATION TOWARDS PAIN, SHOCK AND SUFFERING :
23. It is stated in the petition that, in the accident, the Petitioner had sustained grievous injuries. The Wound Certificate i.e., Ex.P4 issued by the Medical Officer of the Apollo hospital which shows that in the said accident the Petitioner has sustained following injuries i.e., SCCH 15 19 MVC No.4816/2018
1) Crush injury from posterior aspect of right mid shaft of humorus to posterior aspect of right forearm, exposing of vessels and bone.
2) Xray shows Right humorus shaft fracture.
3) Right elbow joint communited fracture
4) Both bones forearm fracture right As per the opinion of the doctor, the said injuries are grievous in nature.
24. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the Petitioner, I am of the opinion that, awarding compensation of Rs.1,00,000/ under this head would be just and reasonable.
II. COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF AMENITIES :
25. Bearing in mind the nature of the injuries sustained by the Petitioner, I am of the opinion that awarding compensation of Rs.1,00,000/ under this head would be just and reasonable.
SCCH 15 20 MVC No.4816/2018 III. COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF INCOME DURING THE LAID-UP PERIOD:
26. The Petitioner deposed in his evidence that he has taken first aid treatment at PHC, Besagarahalli and then taken to District hospital, Mandya and thereafter he was shifted to Apollo BGS Hospital, Mysore. Upon going through Ex.P.5 Discharge summaries of Apollo BGS Hospital, Mysore, which shows that the Petitioner was admitted as an inpatient in the said hospital from 16.03.2017 to 24.03.2017, 26.07.2017 to 28.07.2017 and 17.01.2018 to 18.01.2018. Therefore, while calculating the total period of which the Petitioner admitted as an inpatient, it comes to 14 days.
27. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the Petitioner, I am of the opinion that the laid up period may be considered as four months. Hence, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.20,000/ under this head (@ Rs.5,000/ per month ).
SCCH 15 21 MVC No.4816/2018 IV. COMPENSATION TOWARDS ATTENDANT'S CHARGES, EXTRA DIET & NOURISHMENT AND CONVEYANCE :
28. Admittedly, the Petitioner has sustained injuries and during the laid up period, the Petitioner might have engaged an attendant and also he might have spent some amount towards extra diet and nourishment and for his conveyance. In the facts and circumstances of the case, awarding compensation of Rs.12,000/ (@ Rs.100/ per day) towards attendants charges, Rs.12,000/ towards extra diet and nourishment and Rs.12,000/ towards conveyance would be just and reasonable. In all, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.36,000/ under this head.
V. COMPENSATION TOWARDS MEDICAL EXPENCES :
29. The Petitioner has deposed that he has spent more than ₹10,00,000/ towards medical expenses and other incidental charges. In order to prove this fact, he has produced hospital and Medical bills, which is marked at Ex.P.16 and SCCH 15 22 MVC No.4816/2018 Ex.P.17. I have gone through the said Medical bills. The acceptable medical bills comes to Rs.4,51,775/. By rounding of the same, it is to be taken at Rs.4,52,000/. Hence, I am of the opinion that the Petitioner is entitled for Rs.4,52,000/ under this head.
VI. COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF FUTURE EARNINGS / COMPENSATION TOWARDS PERMANENT DISABILITY:
30. The petitioner has stated that due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident, he has suffered permanent disablement and he is not able to do his work as he used to do earlier. Even in his evidence, P.W.1 has deposed to that effect.
31. Further, the Petitioner got examined witness by name Dr. Nagaraj B.N as P.W.2 who has deposed regarding the injuries sustained by the Petitioner in a Road Traffic Accident and the treatment taken by the Petitioner. Further, he has deposed that the Petitioner had disability to the whole body at SCCH 15 23 MVC No.4816/2018 45%. Further, PW.2 got marked Clinical report and Xray at Ex.P19 and 20. In the crossexamination, PW.2 admitted that he has not treated the Petitioner and he has gone through the previous medical records of the Petitioner before assessing the disability. Further, he deposed that the Petitioner had taken treatment finally in the year of 2018 before coming to his clinic. Further he stated that he does not know about the further treatment documents of the Petitioner and he has not compared the Xrays taken in the year 2018 at the time of discharge with the recent Xrays. Further he deposed that he could not say whether the the fracture of the Petitioner is united or not. Further he denied the other suggestions. Hence, by considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the Petitioner and by considering the nature of the work of the Petitioner, I am of the opinion that considering the disability of the Petitioner with respect to the whole body at 20% would be just and proper.
SCCH 15 24 MVC No.4816/2018
32. As per Sarla Verma's Case (2009 ACJ 1298 SC), the multiplier applicable to the Petitioner is 18. With multiplier of 18, income of Rs.5,000/ per month and disability of the Petitioner with respect to his whole body at 20%, the loss of future income comes to ₹ 2,16,000/ (Rs.5,000/ x 12 = 60,000/, Rs.60,000/x 18 x 20/100 = 2,16,000/). Hence, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation of ₹2,16,000/ under this head.
TOTAL COMPENSATION TO WHICH THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED:
33. To sum up, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation under the following heads :
1. Pain, shock & Suffering Rs.1,00,000/
2. Loss of amenities Rs.1,00,000/
3. Loss of income during the Rs. 20,000/ laid up period
4. Attendant's charges, Extra Rs. 36,000/ diet, and conveyance SCCH 15 25 MVC No.4816/2018
5. Medical expenses Rs.4,52,000/
6. Loss of Future Income Rs.2,16,000/ Total Rs.9,24,000/
34. Thus, totally the Petitioner is awarded compensation of Rs.9,24,000/ with costs and simple interest at 6% p.a. from the date of this petition till the date of realization.
35. Regarding Liability: This Court has arrived at the conclusion that the accident has been occurred by the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending Tipper lorry bearing Reg.No.KA11B1539 and driver of KSRTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA11F0036. The drivers of both vehicles attributed their negligence towards the accident. In this case, the Respondent No.1 is the owner and Respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending Tipper lorry bearing Reg.No.KA11B1539. There is no dispute about the validity of the policy. Therefore, the Respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly SCCH 15 26 MVC No.4816/2018 and severally liable to satisfy 90% of the award amount out of the total award amount. The Respondent No.2, who is liable to indemnify the Respondent No.1 has to pay the compensation amount to the Petitioner. The Respondent No.3 is liable to pay 10% of the award amount out of the total award amount to the Petitioner.
36. It is to be noted here that the Respondent No.3 Corporation has paid Rs.4,47,206/ towards the medical expenses to the Petitioner. RW.3 got marked Certified copies of Payment receipts at Ex.R7 and 8 and Certified copy of Payment Register at Ex.P9 to 11 and Office order at Ex.R12. In the crossexamination, he admitted that the amount mentioned in the Ex.R12 was given to the Petitioner by their Corporation voluntarily. Further he deposed that Ex.R12 does not states to return the said interim compensation amount already granted to the Petitioner. They gave the said amount to the Petitioner to bear the medical expenses. Upon going SCCH 15 27 MVC No.4816/2018 through Ex.R7, Ex.R9 to 12 shows that the Petitioner has totally received Rs.4,47,206/ from the Respondent No.3 Corporation as a interim compensation. It is to be noted here that, in the crossexamination of PW.1 by the Learned Counsel for Respondent No.3, he has deposed that he does not had any problem if the Court ordered to return the said amount to the KSRTC. In this case, this Tribunal comes to the opinion that the Respondent No.3 had attributed 10% contributory negligence towards the said accident. Hence, it is essential to order that the Respondent No.3 is liable to deposit 10% of award amount after deducting the interim amount granted to the Petitioner. Further if there is any excess amount was granted as a interim compensation by the Respondent No.3, then it is entitled to receive the same from the amount deposited by the Respondent No.2 before this Court. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.2 "Partly in the Affirmative".
SCCH 15 28 MVC No.4816/2018
37. Issue No.3: In view of my findings on Issues No. 1 and 2 , I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The Claim Petition filed by the Petitioner against the Respondents U/S 166 of M.V. Act is hereby allowed in part with costs.
The Petitioner is entitled for Compensation of Rs.9,24,000/ along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the Petition till the date of deposit of Award amount.
The Respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay 90% of the compensation amount out of the total compensation amount awarded to the Petitioner.
The Respondent No.3 is liable to pay 10% of the compensation amount out of the SCCH 15 29 MVC No.4816/2018 total compensation amount awarded to the Petitioner.
The Respondent No.2 being the Insurer, is directed to deposit the 90% of the compensation amount with interest out of the total compensation amount within 60 days from the date of the Award.
The Respondent No.3 is directed to
deposit the 10% of the compensation
amount with interest out of the total
compensation amount within 60 days from the date of the Award after deducting the interim compensation amount already granted to the Petitioner. If there is any excess amount was granted as a interim compensation by the Respondent No.3, then it is entitled to receive the same from the award amount deposited by the Respondent No.2 before this Court.
SCCH 15 30 MVC No.4816/2018
Out of the compensation amount
awarded to the Petitioner, 75% of the award amount with accrued interest shall be released to the petitioner by way of E payment and after proper identification. The remaining 25% award amount shall be deposited as F.D. in the name of the Petitioner in any Nationalized or Schedule bank for a period of three years.
The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/. Draw Award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on the computer, print out taken by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 5th day of January 2024) (Smt. Kumari Sujatha.) XIII Addl. Small Causes Judge, ACMM,Court of Small Causes & Member, MACT15, Bengaluru.
SCCH 15 31 MVC No.4816/2018
Annexure
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Petitioner :
P.W.1 : Sri. Shivu T P.W.2 : Dr. Nagaraj B.N
Documents marked as Exhibits for the Petitioner :
Ex.P1 : FIR Ex.P2 : Spot mahazar Ex.P3 : IMV report Ex.P4 : Wound certificate Ex.P5 : Discharge summaries Ex.P6 : Hematology report and Radiology Report Ex.P7 : Consent letter Ex.P8 : Prescriptions Ex.P9 : Xrays Ex.P10 : Complaint Ex.P11 : Chargesheet Ex.P12 : Photos with CD Ex.P13 : Payslip Ex.P14 : Aadhar card Ex.P15 : Statement of Marks of AITT Ex.P16 : Inpatient bills SCCH 15 32 MVC No.4816/2018 Ex.P17 : Outpatient bills Ex.P18 : Physiotherapy bill Ex.P19 : Clinical report Ex.P20 : Xray
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Respondent :
RW.1 : Sri. Honne Gowda Y.N RW.2 : Sri. A. Gurudath RW.3 : Sri. S.C. Shamanna
Documents marked as Exhibits for the Respondents:
Ex.R1 : Order sheet
Ex.R2 & 3 : Objection Statements
Ex.R4 : Authorisation letter
Ex.R5 : Copy of Policy
Ex.R6 : Authorisation letter
Ex.R7 & 8 : Receipts
Ex.R9 to 11 : Payment Register
Ex.R12 : Office Order copy
( Smt. Kumari Sujatha.)
XIII Addl. Small Causes Judge,
ACMM,Court of Small Causes &
Member, MACT15, Bengaluru.