Bangalore District Court
Nagesh Gopal vs Dr.Dhanalakshmi. M on 19 October, 2016
IN THE COURT OF III ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU. (SCCH-18)
Dated: This 19th day of October 2016
Present: SRI.VEERANNA SOMASEKHARA
B.Com, LL.B.,
III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE.
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BANGALORE.
M.V.C.No.2231/2015
PETITIONER: Nagesh Gopal
S/o.G.V.Gopal,
Aged about 18 years,
R/at No.6, "Balaji Nivas',
4th Cross, II Main,
AECS Layout, I Stage,
Sanjaynagar,
Bengaluru-56.
(By Pleader Sri.BSM)
/Vs./
RESPONDENTS: 1.Dr.Dhanalakshmi. M
W/o.Narayanaswamy.C
No.173, II Main, 11th Block,
Nagarabhavi II Stage,
Bengaluru-72.
(Exparte)
2. The New India Assurance Co.Ltd.,
T.P.Hub, II Floor,
Mahalakshmi Chambers,
2 MVC.No.2231/2015
SCCH-18
M.G.Road,
Bengaluru-01.
(By pleader Smt.PS)
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner has filed this claim petition against the respondents U/S.166 of M.V. Act for seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- with interest for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident.
2. The brief contents of petition are as under:
The contention of the petitioner is that, he was hale and healthy at the time of accident aged about 18 years, studying in II PUC at MES College, Bengaluru. Further the contention of the petitioner is that, on 05-12-2014 at about 3.30 P.M. he was riding the motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-04-HP-3434 from his college towards Sanjaynagar and when he reached near CPRI Gate, new BEL road, at that time, the driver of the car bearing registration No.KA-41-P-4983 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the petitioner's motorcycle. 3 MVC.No.2231/2015
SCCH-18 Due to the said impact, the petitioner fell down on the road along with vehicle and sustained grievous injuries. Thereafter, the public gathered at the spot have shifted the injured to M.S.R. Hospital, wherein he has taken first aid and thereafter, he was shifted to Manipal hospital, Bengaluru, wherein he has taken treatment as an inpatient and underwent surgery. After discharge from the hospital and as per the advice of the doctor, the petitioner has taken follow-up treatment as an outpatient and till today, he is taking treatment as an outpatient. The contention of the petitioner is that, he has spent huge amount towards medical expenses, food and conveyance charges.
3. The contention of petitioner is that, due to the accidental injuries, he has suffered permanent disablement and he has remained absent to the classes and as such he has lost one academic year of education and lost his bright future educational career and suffered lot. The respondent No.1 is the owner and the respondent No.2 is the insurer of the alleged car and the policy was in force as on the date of accident. The 4 MVC.No.2231/2015 SCCH-18 accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car and as such, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Contending the above facts, he prays to grant for compensation with interest and cost.
4. In response to the petition notice, the respondent No.2 has appeared before the court through his counsel and filed the objection statement. The respondent No.1 has not appeared before the court. Accordingly, she was placed exparte.
5. The brief contents of objection statement of respondent No.2 are as under:
The respondent No.2 has contended that, the claim petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Further the respondent No.2 has contended that, the alleged accident has not occurred due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the alleged car, on the other hand, the accident has occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the petitioner. Further the respondent No.2 has denied the age and 5 MVC.No.2231/2015 SCCH-18 status of the petitioner and injuries sustained by him and medical expenses incurred by him and also disablement suffered by him. Further the respondent No.2 contended that, the owner of the vehicle and the concerned police have not complied the mandatory provisions of Sec.134(c) and 158(6) of MV Act and as such, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed on that ground only. Further he contended that, the alleged car was not at all involved in the accident, but in spite of that, the petitioner colluded with the police and the owner of the car have created the documents for the purpose of claiming the compensation from the Insurance company. Further he contended that, there was a delay of 11 days in lodging the complaint and as such, the alleged car was falsely implicated in the accident. Contending the above facts, he prays to dismiss the petition as against him with cost.
6. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues were framed:
6 MVC.No.2231/2015
SCCH-18
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he had sustained grievous injuries in an accident that was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the CAR bearing Reg. No.KA-41-P-4983 on 05.12.2014 at about 03:30 p.m., near CRRI Gate, on New BEL Road, Bangalore?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed? If so, at what rate and from whom?
3. What order or award?
7. In order to prove the case, the petitioner has examined himself as PW-1 and got marked the documents as Ex-P-1 to 17 and 26 to 28. Further in support of his evidence, the petitioner has examined Dr.Avinash Parthasarathy as PW-2 and examined the medical record technician of Manipal hospital, as PW-3 and got marked the documents as Ex.P.18 to 25, respectively.
8. To disprove the case of the petitioner and to prove the defence, the administrative officer of the respondent No.2 Insurance company has examined as RW-1 and got marked the documents as Ex-R-1 to 5.
7 MVC.No.2231/2015
SCCH-18
9. Heard the arguments and perused the records.
10. My findings to the aforesaid issues are as follows:
Issue No.1 and 2: In the Partly Affirmative Issue No.3: As per final order for the following:
R E A S O N S
11. ISSUE NO.1:-. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued by reiterating the contents of petition and also evidence put forth by PW-1 to 3. Further he argued that, the defence of the respondent No.2 is that, on the alleged dated of accident, the petitioner was not having valid driving licence to ride the motorcycle and as such, the alleged accident has occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the petitioner. To prove the said fact, though, the respondent No.2 has examined its official as RW-1, but he is not an eyewitness to the accident and the evidence of RW-1 is not supported with proper documents. On the other hand, on perusal of evidence of PW-1 coupled with copy of police investigation papers produced by the petitioner, it shows that, the alleged 8 MVC.No.2231/2015 SCCH-18 accident has occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the driver of the alleged car. Further he argued that, another defence of the respondent No.2 is that, there was a delay of 11 days in lodging the complaint and as such, the alleged car was falsely implicated in the accident. But on perusal of the medical records produced by the petitioner, it shows that, the alleged vehicle was involved in the accident and the father of the petitioner i.e. complainant has properly explained the delay in lodging the complaint. Further he argued that, to prove the disablement suffered by the petitioner, he has examined the doctor as Pw-2 and as per the version of the doctor, the petitioner has suffered disability to the extent of 21% to the whole body. Further he argued that, due to the accidental injuries, the petitioner has lost his one academic year education and as such, he has lost his bright future educational career. Further he argued that, the petitioner has proved his case as contended in the petition by producing sufficient documents. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. 9 MVC.No.2231/2015
SCCH-18
12. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following citations:
1. ACJ 2010 page 1466 (Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Amit Kumar and others)
2. ACJ 2011 Page 911 (Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan and others)
3. ACJ 2014 Page 287 (Manne Srinivasa Rao Vs. Regalla Uma and another)
4. ACJ 2014 Page 469 (Anbazhagan and others Vs. V.Shankar and another)
13. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 argued by reiterating the contents of objection statement filed by the respondent No.2 and also evidence put forth by RW-1. Further she argued that, on perusal of the evidence of PW-1 coupled with copy of police investigation papers produced by the petitioner, itself shows that, at the time of accident, the petitioner was a minor and he was not having driving licence to ridden the motorbike and as such, the accident has occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the petitioner. Further she 10 MVC.No.2231/2015 SCCH-18 argued that, there was a delay of 11 days in lodging the complaint and as such, the alleged vehicle was falsely implicated in this case to get the compensation from the Insurance company. Further she argued that, to prove the alleged disablement, though, the petitioner has examined the doctor as Pw-2, but he is not a treated doctor and as such, the evidence of Pw-2 is not acceptable one. Further she argued that, the petitioner has failed to prove his age and status by producing proper documents and also he has failed to prove his case by producing supportive evidence. On the other hand, the respondent No.2 has proved its defence by examining the witness and by extracting admission from the petitioner. Accordingly, she prays to dismiss the petition filed by the petitioner as against respondent No.2.
14. In support of the arguments, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 relied an unreported Judgment of our Hon'ble High Court passed in MFA No.30284/2008 dated 5-12-2012 (Ramalingappa Vs. Shivarao and others).
11 MVC.No.2231/2015
SCCH-18
15. On rival contention urged by both the counsel, I, intend to discuss the case on merits.
On perusal of the records, it reveals that, the petitioner has examined himself as PW-1 and he has stated in his evidence by reiterating the contents of petition. Further in support of his evidence, he has produced the documents and the same are marked as Ex.P.1 to P.17 and 26 to 28.
16. Thereafter the counsel for the respondent No.2 has cross-examined the PW-1 at length. In the cross examination, the PW-1 has clearly stated at page No.6 to 8 and 11 that:-
" C¥ÀWÁvÀªÁ¬ÄvÉAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀ ¢£À £Á£ÀÄ ¨ÉÊPï ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ºÉýzÀÄÝ, DzÀgÉ D ªÉüÉUÉ £Á£ÀÄ ¨ÉÊPï ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¸ÀĪÀ r.J¯ï ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀ°®è. £Á£ÀÄ r.J¯ï ºÉÆAzÀzÉà EzÀÄÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CzÀjAzÀ £À£ÀUÉ ¨ÉÊPï ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¸À®Ä §gÀzÉà EzÀÄÝ, D PÁgÀt¢AzÀ C¥ÀWÁvÀ £À£Àß vÀ¦à¤AzÀ DVgÀĪÀÅzÉAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è.
CfðAiÀ°è PÁtô¹zÀ C¥ÀWÁvÀ ªÀiÁrvÉAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀ ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀ¼ÁzÀ 1£ÀÉà JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ ¥ÀjZÀAiÀÄ £À£ÀV®è. CfðAiÀÄ°è PÁtô¹zÀ PÁgï £À£ÀUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¸ÀAzÀ¨ÀsðzÀ°è C¥ÀWÁvÀ ªÀiÁqÀzÉà EzÀÝgÀÆ PÀÆqÁ, £Á£ÀÄ J°èAiÉÆà C¥ÀWÁvÀQÌÃqÁV UÁAiÀĺÉÆA¢, 12 MVC.No.2231/2015 SCCH-18 CzÀ£ÀÄß zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ PÁgï ZÁ®PÀ£À «gÀÄzÀÞ ¸ÀļÀÄî ¦ügÁå¢ ¤ÃrgÀĪɣÉAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è.
CfðAiÀÄ°è PÁtô¹zÀ PÁgï C¥ÀWÁvÀ¥Àr¸ÀzÉà EzÀÝgÀÆ PÀÆqÁ, PÁgï£À ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÁzÀ 1 £Éà JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ¥ÀjZÀAiÀĸÀÜjzÀÄÝ, CzÀjAzÀ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÉǰøÀgÀÄ ºÁUÀÄ ªÁºÀ£À ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ PÀÆr ¸ÀļÀÄî PÉøÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁr¹,2 £Éà JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀ «ªÀiÁ PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ «gÀÄzÀÞ F PÉøÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀļÁîV ºÁQgÀĪɣÉAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è.
C¥ÀWÁvÀzÀ §UÉÎ 11 ¢£ÀUÀ¼À «¼ÀA§ªÁV ¦ügÁå¢ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸ÁQë ¸ÀévÀB ºÉüÀĪÀÅzÉãÉAzÀgÉ, D¸ÀàvÉæAiÀÄ°è £À£ÀߣÀÄß £À£Àß vÀAzÉ £ÉÆÃrPÉƼÀÄîwÛzÀÝÄ, CzÀjAzÀ «¼ÀA§ªÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
£À£ÀUÉ AiÀiÁªÀ ªÁºÀ£À C¥ÀWÁvÀ ªÀiÁrzÉ JAzÀÄ w½AiÀÄzÉà EzÀÄÝ, D PÁgÀt £ÁªÀÅ vÀPÀët ¦ügÁåzÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀ®Ä ¥ÀæAiÀÄw߸À°®è JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è."
On perusal of the above evidence, it is clear that, the respondent No.2 has denied the involvement of the alleged vehicle in the accident. Further another defence of the respondent No.2 is that, there was a delay of 11 days in lodging the complaint and as such, the alleged car was not caused the accident to the petitioner and the father of the petitioner has 13 MVC.No.2231/2015 SCCH-18 not properly explained the delay of 11 days in lodging the complaint.
17. To prove the said defence, the respondent No.2 has examined its official as RW-1 and he has stated in his evidence by reiterating the contents of objection statement filed by the respondent No.2 and also the above said defence. On perusal of evidence of the RW-1 it reveals that, he is not an eyewitness to the incident and the evidence of RW-1 is not supported with proper documents.
Considering the above facts and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the entire version of RW-1 is not acceptable one.
18. Further to prove the involvement of the alleged vehicle in the accident, the petitioner has relied upon the documents at Ex-P-22 , 24 and 25 i.e. case sheet, copy of accident register and MLC intimation letter. On perusal of Ex-P-22 i.e. case sheet, wherein the initial assessment form is available and in the said form, the history is mentioned as under: 14 MVC.No.2231/2015
SCCH-18 "Patient was apparently alright today around 3.30 p.m. when he was going on a two-wheeler near Ramaiah hospital was hit by a wheeler."
19. Further on perusal of Ex-P-24 i.e. copy of accident register, wherein, the history of accident is mentioned as under:
"H/o accident patient was riding his motorcycle when he colluded accident a car."
Further on perusal of Ex-P-25 i.e. copy of MLC intimation letter, it shows that on 5-12-2014 itself (on the same day of admission) the Manipal hospital authority have sent the MLC intimation to the Old Airport Police station. Considering the above facts and on perusal of the contents of Ex-P-22 and 24, it reveals that the car was involved in the accident. Further on perusal of Ex-P-1 i.e. copy of FIR with complaint, it reveals that there was a delay of 11 days in lodging the complaint, but the complainant i.e. father of the petitioner has properly explained the said delay. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of evidence of PW-1 coupled with 15 MVC.No.2231/2015 SCCH-18 contents of Ex-P-22 to 24, I am of the opinion that, if at all as per the version of respondent No.2 the alleged car was not involved in the accident, then it was the duty of the respondent No.2 to examine the driver of the alleged car or any one of the witness cited in the charge sheet. But the respondent No.2 did not do so. Considering the above facts and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the oral contention of the respondent No.2 is not acceptable done.
20. At this stage, I have gone through the citation relied by the counsel for the petitioner reported in 2011 ACJ Page 911 (Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan and others), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
"Lodging of FIR certainly proves factum of accident, but delay in doing so cannot be the main ground for rejecting claim application."
On going through the above Judgment, the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court is aptly applicable to the case on hand. 16 MVC.No.2231/2015
SCCH-18
21. Considering the above facts and on perusal of evidence of PW-1 and RW-1 coupled with documents and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the petitioner has proved the involvement of the alleged vehicle in the accident and also the father of the petitioner has properly explained the delay of 11 days in lodging the complaint.
22. Further to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the alleged car, the petitioner has relied upon the copy of police investigation papers and the same are marked as Ex-P-1 to 7. On perusal of Ex.P.1 & 7 i.e. copy of FIR with complaint and charge sheet, it reveals that, R.T.Nagar traffic police have registered a case against the driver of the car bearing registration No.KA-41-P-4983 and after completion of investigation, the concerned police have filed the charge sheet against the driver of the said car for the offences punishable U/S.279 and 338 of IPC.
23. Further the specific contention of the respondent No.2 is that, on the alleged date of accident, the petitioner was 17 MVC.No.2231/2015 SCCH-18 aged about 17 years and as such, he is a minor and he was not having driving licence to ride the motorbike. Hence, the alleged accident has occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the petitioner.
24. To prove the said fact, the respondent No.2 has relied upon the evidence of PW-1. On perusal of evidence of PW-1, it shows that, at the time of accident, the petitioner was aged about 17 years and he is not having driving licence to ride the motorcycle. But merely the petitioner is not having driving licence to ride the motorcycle is not a good ground to hold that the accident has occurred due to sole negligence on the part of him i.e. petitioner. Considering the above facts, I am of the opinion that, as per the version of the respondent No.2, if at all the accident has not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the alleged car, then it was the duty of the driver or the owner of the said car may lodged the counter complaint against the petitioner before the concerned police. But the driver of the alleged car did not do so. 18 MVC.No.2231/2015
SCCH-18
25. Further as stated above that, admittedly the petitioner was aged about 17 years as on the date of accident and he is not having driving licence to ride the motorcycle. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the petitioner has also contributed some extent of negligence for occurrence of accident. However, the extent of negligence on the part of the petitioner is lesser, than the negligence on the part of the driver of the alleged car. Considering the above facts and on perusal of evidence of PW-1 and RW-1 coupled with documents and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, if the extent of negligence on the part of the driver of car is assessed at 75% and the negligence on the part of the petitioner is assessed at 25% certainly it would meet the ends of justice.
26. Further on perusal of Ex.P.6 i.e., copy of wound certificate, it shows that, the petitioner has sustained simple as well as grievous injuries in the above said accident. 19 MVC.No.2231/2015
SCCH-18
27. Considering the above facts and on appreciation of evidence of Pw-1 and RW-1 coupled with documents and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the petitioner has partly proved this issue by producing sufficient documents. Accordingly, I answer this issue in the partly affirmative.
28. ISSUE NO.2:- The specific contention of the petitioner is that, he was hale and healthy at the time of accident, aged about 18 years and studying in PUC II year (Science). Further the contention of the petitioner is that, he has sustained grievous injuries in the accident and due to the accidental injuries, he has suffered permanent disablement and also he has not attended the classes for few month and as such, he has lost his one year academic education and as such, he has lost his bright educational career.
On the other hand, the respondent No.2 has denied the age and status of the petitioner and injuries sustained by him and disablement suffered by him.
20 MVC.No.2231/2015
SCCH-18
29. To prove the age, the petitioner has not produced any supportive documents. On the other hand, on perusal of copy of wound certificate, wherein the age of the petitioner is shown as 17 years as on the date of accident.
30. To prove the educational status, the petitioner has relied upon the copy of PUC marks card and the same is marked as Ex.P.28. On perusal of Ex-P-28, it shows that, in the year 2014-2015, the petitioner was studying in PUC II year Science and he had completed his PUC II year education in the month of July 2015.
31. Further to prove the disablement suffered by the petitioner, he has examined Dr.Avinash Parthasarathy as PW-2, who has stated in his evidence that, the petitioner has sustained compound type III B unstable fracture of left ankle and sustained fracture of left distal end of tibia bone and un- displaced fracture of left molleolus and sustained un-displaced fracture of right radius. Further he has stated that, the 21 MVC.No.2231/2015 SCCH-18 petitioner has suffered disability to the extent of 21% to the whole body.
32. Thereafter the counsel for the respondent No.2 has cross-examined the PW-2 at length. In the cross-examination, the PW-2 has clearly admitted at page No.6 that:
"UÁAiÀiÁ¼ÀÄ £ÁUÀÉñïUÉÆÃ¥Á¯ï EªÀjUÉ £Á£ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ºÀAvÀzÀ®Æè aQvÉìAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¸ÀzÀj UÁAiÀiÁ¼ÀÄ£À £À£Àß §½ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ºÀAvÀzÀ°è ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀ aQvÉìAiÀÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀÆqÁ ¥ÀqÉ¢®è."
On perusal of above evidence of PW-2, it reveals that, the Pw-2 is not a treated doctor and the fractures are united. Further as stated above that, as on the date of accident, the petitioner was aged about 17 years and studying in PUC II year. Further on perusal of evidence of PW-1, it reveals that, at present, he is studying in BE II semester. Considering the above facts and looking to the age and status of the petitioner and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, if the extent of disability suffered by the petitioner is considered as 16% to the whole body certainly it would meet the ends of justice. 22 MVC.No.2231/2015
SCCH-18
33. Further as stated above that, at the time of accident, the petitioner was a student and as such, he is not an earning member. Hence, in view of the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in a citation reported in ILR 2013 KAR 4891 (Master Mallikarjun Vs. Divisional Manager, The National Insurance Co.Ltd.,), if some amount is awarded under the head of disablement certainly it would meet the ends of justice. Considering the above facts, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- under the head of disablement.
34. Further on perusal of Ex.P.6 i.e., copy of wound certificate, it shows that, the petitioner has sustained the following injuries:-
1. Left ankle open type 3 B unstable fracture dislocation.
2. Left distal end tibia fracture.
3. Un-displaced left lateral malleolus fracture.
4.Un-displaced right distal radius fracture. 23 MVC.No.2231/2015
SCCH-18 Further it reveals that, as per the version of the doctor, all the injuries are grievous in nature.
Considering the above facts and looking to the nature of injuries and considering the age and status of the petitioner, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.90,000/- under the head of Pain and Suffering.
35. Further as stated above that, as on the date of accident, the petitioner was aged about 17 years and he was a student. Further as stated above that, the petitioner has suffered disability to the extent of 16% to the whole body. Considering the above facts and looking to the status of the petitioner, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.25,000/- under the head of Loss of amenities.
36. Further on perusal of Ex.P.8 to 10 i.e. discharge summaries, it shows that, the petitioner has taken treatment as an inpatient for a period of 14 days at Manipal Hospital, Bangalore. Further on perusal of Ex-P-12 i.e. out patient 24 MVC.No.2231/2015 SCCH-18 records, it shows that, the petitioner has taken follow-up treatment as an outpatient for a period of 4 months (once in a week) at Manipal hospital, Bengaluru. Looking to the period of hospitalization and period of follow-up treatment, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.20,000/- under the head of attendant, nourishment and conveyance charges.
37. The contention of the petitioner is that, his parents have spent huge amount towards his medical expenses and other incidental charges. To prove the said fact, the petitioner has relied upon the medical bills and the same are marked as Ex.P.15. On the other hand, the respondent No.2 has disputed the genuineness of the said bills and to that effect, the counsel for the respondent No.2 has cross-examined the Pw-1 at length, but nothing has been elicited from him to disbelieve those bills. Further on perusal of evidence of Pw-1 coupled with medical bills, it shows that, the petitioner has spent an amount of Rs.4,71,103/- towards medical expenses. Considering the above 25 MVC.No.2231/2015 SCCH-18 facts, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.4,71,000/- under the head of medical expenses.
38. Further due to the accidental injuries, the petitioner might have taken rest atleast for a period of five months and during that period, the parents of the petitioner may taken care of him and during that period, the father of the petitioner may lost his 5 months income. Considering the above facts and for the above reason, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of loss of income of father of petitioner during laid up period and rest period of petitioner.
39. The contention of the petitioner is that, at the time of accident, he was studying in II year PUC at MES college, Malleshwaram and due to the accidental injuries, he has not attended the classes for few months and as such, he has lost his one year academic education. In support of his contention, the petitioner has produced the copy of PUC marks card and the same is marked as Ex-P-28. On perusal of Ex-P-28, it shows 26 MVC.No.2231/2015 SCCH-18 that, the petitioner has appeared the PUC examination in the month of March 2015 and passed in 5 subjects and thereafter, he had passed another one subject in the month of July 2015. Further on perusal of the records, it reveals that, in the month of December 2014, the alleged accident has occurred. Considering the above facts and looking to the contents of marks card and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, due to the accidental injuries, the petitioner might not have attended the classes regularly for few months. Considering the above facts, I am of the opinion that, if some amount is awarded under the head of loss of education certainly it would meet the ends of justice. For the above reason, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.20,000/-under the head of loss of education.
Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs.9,66,000/- under the following heads:
27 MVC.No.2231/2015
SCCH-18 Compensation heads Compensation amount
1. Towards Pain and Suffering Rs. 90,000/-
2. Towards loss of amenities Rs. 25,000/-
3. Towards disablement Rs. 3,00,000/-
4. Towards loss of income of father of Rs. 40,000/-
petitioner during laid up period & rest period of petitioner
5. Towards nourishment, conveyance & Rs. 20,000/- attendant charges
6. Towards medical expenses Rs. 4,71,000/-
7. Towards loss of education Rs. 20,000/-
Total Rs. 9,66,000/-
40. LIABILITY: On perusal of the contents of petition and contents of objection statement, it reveals that, the respondent No.1 is the owner of the car bearing registration No.KA-41-P-4983 and the respondent No.2 is the insurer of the said car. Further on perusal of Ex-R-5 i.e. copy of policy, it shows that, as on the date of accident, the policy was in force. Further as stated above that, the petitioner has contributed the negligence to the extent of 25% for occurrence of accident and the driver of the alleged car had contributed the negligence to the extent of 75%. Considering the above facts, I am of the 28 MVC.No.2231/2015 SCCH-18 opinion that, the respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay 75% of compensation amount to the petitioner. However, the respondent No.2 being the insurer of the alleged vehicle is liable to pay compensation to the extent of 75% of Rs.9,66,000/- which comes to Rs.7,24,500/- which is rounded of to Rs.7,25,000/- with interest @9% P.A. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Accordingly, I answer the issue No.2 in the partly affirmative.
41. ISSUE NO.3: In view of above discussion on issues Nos.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following;
O R D E R The claim petition filed by the petitioner U/S. 166 of MV act is hereby partly allowed with cost.
The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.7,25,000/-with interest @9% P.A. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
The respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the 29 MVC.No.2231/2015 SCCH-18 petitioner. However in view of the policy, the respondent No.2 Insurance Company is directed to deposit the said compensation amount in this tribunal within a month from the date of this order.
After deposit of compensation amount, looking to the medical expenses incurred by the parents of petitioner, an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- shall be kept in FD in the name of petitioner in any nationalized bank/ schedule Bank of petitioner's choice, for a period of 3 years.
Remaining amount with accrued interest shall be released in the name of petitioner through account payee cheque on proper identification.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open court on this 19th day of October 2016).
(VEERANNA SOMASEKHARA) III ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXIX ACMM, BANGALORE.
30 MVC.No.2231/2015
SCCH-18 ANNEXURES List of witnesses examined on petitioner's side:
P.W.1. Nagesh Gopal P.W.2. Dr.Avinash Parthasarathy P.W.3. Padma List of documents exhibited on petitioner's side:
Ex-P1 True copy of FIR with complaint
Ex-P2 True copy of Panchanama
Ex-P3 True copy of sketch
Ex-P4 & 5 True copy of MVA reports
Ex-P6 True copy of wound certificate
Ex-P7 True copy of charge sheet
Ex-P8 to 10 Discharge summary
Ex-P11 Emergency discharge summary
Ex-P12 15 OPD Records
Ex-P13 Therapy requisition form
Ex-P14 Lab report
Ex-P15 Medical bills
Ex-P16 5 X-rays
Ex-P17 6 CT scan
Ex-P18 Recent OPD slip
Ex-P19 Disability assessment certificate
Ex-P20 3 X-rays
Ex-P21 Authorization letter
Ex-P22 Case sheet
Ex-P23 OPD record
Ex-P24 Copy of accident register extract
Ex-P25 Copy of MLC intimation letter
Ex-P26& 27 Copy of statements
Ex-P28 Notarized copy of PUC marks card
31 MVC.No.2231/2015
SCCH-18
List of witnesses examined on respondents side:
R.W.1: Sushil Thiwari.
List of documents exhibited on respondents side:
Ex-R1 Authorization letter
Ex-R2 Copy of MLC intimation letter
Ex-R3 Copy of notice
Ex-R4 Postal acknowledgment
Ex-R5 Copy of policy
III ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE
& XXIX ACMM.