Bangalore District Court
In : Smt. Bhagyalakshmi vs Iffco Tokio General Insurance on 29 January, 2021
BEFORE THE COURT OF VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE AND THE MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL (SCCH5) AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
PRESENT: SMT. SHARMILA S. B.Com, LLB.,
VIII ADDL. SCJ & ACMM,
MEMBER - MACT,
BENGALURU.
M.V.C No.2649/2018, 2650/2018 & 2651/2018
c/w
M.V.C No.2642/2018
PETITIONER IN : Smt. Bhagyalakshmi
MVC NO. W/o. Shanthamurthy M.
2642/2018 Aged about 41 years
No.64, Avalahalli,
Singanayakanahalli Post,
Yelahanka Hobli,
Bengaluru - 560 064.
(By Sri.K.V.Karisiddaiah, Adv.,)
PETITIONER IN : Smt. K. Sunitha
MVC NO. W/o. Lakshminarayana
2649/2018 Aged about 48 years
Avalahalli,
Singanayakanahalli Post,
Bengaluru North Taluk,
Bengaluru - 560 064.
(By Sri.K.V.Karisiddaiah, Adv.,)
2
MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018
C/w.2642/2018
SCCH 5
PETITIONER IN : Smt. Channamma
MVC NO. W/o, Rajendra
2650/2018 No.5, Avalahalli Shed Farm,
Bengaluru North Taluk,
Bengaluru - 560 064.
(By Sri.K.V.Karisiddaiah, Adv.,)
PETITIONER IN : Smt. D.M.Sujatha
MVC NO. W/o. Chandrasekhar
2651/2018 No.93/1, Avalahalli,
Bengaluru North Taluk,
Bengaluru - 560 064.
(By Sri. K.V.Karisiddaiah, Adv.,)
V/s.
RESPONDENTS : 1. Iffco Tokio General Insurance
IN MVC No. Co. Ltd.,
2642/2018, Rep. by its Manager
2649/2018, No.151, 5th Floor,
2650/2018 & III Main, East to N.G.E.F. Layout,
2651/2018 Kasturinagara,
Bengaluru - 560 043.
(By Sri.K.Prakash, Adv.,)
2. Sri.G. Channakeshava
Major
No.6, Ward No.9,
Near Petrol Bunk,
Chandapura Main Road,
Anekal Taluk,
Bengaluru - 560 100.
(Exparte)
****
3
MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018
C/w.2642/2018
SCCH 5
::COMMON JUDGMENT::
The petition MVC No.2642/2018 is filed by the
Petitioner under Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1989,
seeking compensation for an amount of Rs.25,00,000/
for the injuries sustained by her, in road traffic accident.
2(a). The petition MVC No.2649/2018 is filed
Petitioner seeking compensation for an amount of
Rs.20,00,000/ for the injuries sustained by her, in a
road traffic accident.
2(b). The petition MVC No.2650/2018 is filed
Petitioner seeking compensation for an amount of
Rs.25,00,000/ for the injuries sustained by her, in a
road traffic accident.
2(c). The petition MVC No.2651/2018 is filed
Petitioner seeking compensation for an amount of
4
MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018
C/w.2642/2018
SCCH 5
Rs.50,00,000/ for the injuries sustained by her, in a
road traffic accident.
3. The brief facts of the case of the Petitioners in
both the cases are as follows:
3(a). It is contended by the Petitioner in MVC
No.2642/2018 that, on 14.12.2017 the Petitioner along
with her relatives have left Avalahalli, Bengaluru, on a
pilgrimage tour to Kabbalamma Temple, Muthathi
Temple and Sangama in Eicher Cab bearing Reg. No.
KA51D1581. After completion of visits at Kabbalamma
temple, the Petitioner and her relatives have left
Muthathi to visit Sangama and when the Eicher Cab at
about 12.30 p.m. was proceeding near Dodda Alahalli,
Sangama Main Road Curve, the driver of the vehicle
drove the same at a high speed and in a rash and
negligent manner so as to endanger human life, lost
5
MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018
C/w.2642/2018
SCCH 5
control of the vehicle thereby the vehicle toppled. As a
result of the impact, all the occupants of the vehicle
sustained grievous injuries.
3(b). Immediately after the accident, the Petitioner
and others were shifted to Government Hospital,
Kanakapura and after first aid, the Petitioner shifted to
Ramaiah Memorial Hospital, Bangalore, where the
Petitioner took treatment as an inpatient. So far the
Petitioner has spent Rs.6,00,000/ towards hospital
charges, medicines, conveyance, nourishment, attendant
charges etc.
3(c). It is the case of the Petitioner that, prior to the
accident she was running a provision store under the
name and style as J.T.Provision Stores and also doing
Flower Vending Business and in all the Petitioner was
earning a sum of Rs.20,000/ per month. Due to the
6
MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018
C/w.2642/2018
SCCH 5
accidental injuries and particularly amputation of the left
hand up to wrist, the Petitioner is unable to do her
avocation and thereby she has lost total earnings during
the period of treatment and future earning capacity.
Further the Petitioner is unable to attend her daily
routine work independently and as such she requires
attendant always for which she totally depends on
others. She is unable to do house hold courses for which
she has engaged maid servant by paying Rs.5,000/ per
month. Hence, she has claimed compensation of
Rs.25,00,000/ against Respondents.
3(d). Petitioner in MVC No.2649/2018 has
contended that, she had also sustained injuries in the
said accident while she was travelling in a Eicher Cab
bearing Reg.No.KA51D1581 along with her relatives, in
the said alleged accident.
7
MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018
C/w.2642/2018
SCCH 5
3(e). Immediately after the accident, the Petitioner
and others were shifted to Government Hospital,
Kanakapura and after first aid, the Petitioner was shifted
to Ramaiah Memorial Hospital, Bangalore, where the
Petitioner took treatment as an inpatient. So far the
Petitioner has spent 5,00,000/ towards hospital,
medicines, conveyance, nourishment, attendant charges
etc.,
3(f). It is the case of the Petitioner that, prior to the
accident she was running a Stationery Shop and earning
a sum of Rs.20,000/ per month. Due to the accidental
injuries, the Petitioner is unable to do her avocation and
thereby she has lost total earnings during the period of
treatment and future earning capacity. Further the
Petitioner is unable to attend her daily routine work
independently and as such she requires attendant always
8
MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018
C/w.2642/2018
SCCH 5
for which she totally depends on others. She is unable to
do house hold courses for which she has engaged maid
servant by paying Rs.5,000/ per month. Hence, she has
claimed compensation of Rs.20,00,000/ against
Respondents.
3(g). Petitioner in MVC No.2650/2018 has
contended that, she had also sustained injuries in the
said accident while she was travelling in a Eicher Cab
bearing Reg.No.KA51D1581 along with her relatives, in
the said alleged accident.
3(h). Immediately after the accident, the Petitioner
and others were shifted to Government Hospital,
Kanakapura and after first aid, the Petitioner shifted to
Columbia Asia Hospital, Bangalore, where the Petitioner
was took treatment as an inpatient. So far the Petitioner
9
MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018
C/w.2642/2018
SCCH 5
has spent 1,80,000/ towards hospital, medicines,
conveyance, nourishment, attendant charges etc.
3(i). It is the case of the Petitioner that, prior to the
accident she was a Tailor by profession and earning a
sum of Rs.15,000/ per month. Due to the accidental
injuries, the Petitioner is unable to do her avocation and
thereby she has lost total earnings during the period of
treatment and future earning capacity. Further the
Petitioner is unable to attend her daily routine work
independently and as such she requires attendant always
for which she totally depends on others. She is unable to
do house hold courses, for which, she has engaged maid
servant by paying Rs.5,000/ per month. Hence, she has
claimed compensation of Rs.25,00,000/ against
Respondents.
10
MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018
C/w.2642/2018
SCCH 5
3(j). Petitioner in MVC No.2651/2018 has
contended that, she had also sustained injuries in the
said accident while she was travelling in a Eicher Cab
bearing Reg.No.KA51D1581 along with her relatives, in
the said alleged accident.
3(k). Immediately after the accident, the Petitioner
and others were shifted to Government Hospital,
Kanakapura and after first aid, the Petitioner shifted to
Ramaiah Medical College Hospital, Bangalore, where the
Petitioner was took treatment as an inpatient. So far the
Petitioner has spent 1,50,000/ towards hospital,
medicines, conveyance, nourishment, attendant charges
etc.
3(l). It is the case of the Petitioner that, prior to the
accident she was doing Vegetable Business and earning a
sum of Rs.18,000/ per month. Due to the accidental
11
MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018
C/w.2642/2018
SCCH 5
injuries, the Petitioner is unable to do her avocation and
thereby she has lost total earnings during the period of
treatment and future earning capacity. Further the
Petitioner is unable to attend her daily routine work
independently and as such she requires attendant always
for which she totally depends on others. She is unable to
do house hold courses for which she has engaged maid
servant by paying Rs.5,000/ per month. Hence, she has
claimed compensation of Rs.50,00,000/ against
Respondents
4. After service of summons, Respondent No.1
appeared through its counsel and filed its written
statement. In spite of service of summons, Respondent
No.2 did not appeared through his counsel nor filed
written statement.
12
MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018
C/w.2642/2018
SCCH 5
5. Respondent No.1 in its written statement by
denying entire averments of the petition and further
admitted that, they have issued policy bearing
No.30276305 against the alleged Bus bearing Reg.No.
KA51D1581 valid from 23.03.2017 to 22.03.2018 and
the liability of the 1st Respondent shall be strictly subject
to the terms and conditions, exceptions and limits and
endorsements of the policy, compliance of 64VB of
Insurance Act and law governing thereto and also the
other enactments corresponding to the incident and
other aspects and matters involved in adjudicating the
matter. According to this Respondent, the situation of the
alleged accident has been twisted and described as if the
insured vehicle is involved and responsible for the
accident. The said vehicle was not at all involved in the
accident.
13
MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018
C/w.2642/2018
SCCH 5
6. Further this Respondent contends that, the
driver of the insured vehicle who was driving at the time
of alleged accident was not having valid and effective
driving license to drive the class of vehicle and he was
not qualified to drive the same. The 2 nd Respondent has
knowingly entrusted the vehicle to the driver who had no
valid and effective driving license. The petition is bad for
non joinder of necessary parties. Further this
Respondent seeks protection available under section
134(c), 158(6), 147 and 149 of M.V.Act. Except this all
other defences are formal in nature and prays to dismiss
claim petitions filed against it.
7. On the basis of the above pleadings, I have
framed following:
14
MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018
C/w.2642/2018
SCCH 5
::COMMON ISSUES IN MVC NO.2642/2018,
2649/2018, 2650/2018 AND 2651/2018 ::
1. Whether the Petitioners prove that on
14.12.2017 when they along with their
relatives left Avalahalli, Bengaluru on a
Pilgrimage Tour to Kabbalamma Temple,
Muthathi Temple and Sangama in Eicher
Cab bearing Reg.No.KA51D1581, after
the visits they left Muthathi to visit
Sangama along with Eicher Cab at about
12.30 p.m. when proceeding near Dodda
Avalahalli Sangama Main Road Curve, the
driver of the vehicle drove the vehicle at a
high speed in a rash and negligent manner,
so as to endanger human life, lost control
of the vehicle and thereby vehicle got
toppled, as a result of which the
Petitioners being the occupants of the
vehicle sustained grievous injuries, as
mentioned in claim petition?
2. Whether Petitioners are entitled for any
compensation as prayed in the petition? If
so, from which Respondent?
3. What Order or Award?
15
MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018
C/w.2642/2018
SCCH 5
8. As these claim petitions are arising out of the
same accident, MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018 are
clubbed in MVC No.2642/2018 for recording of common
evidence and for disposal.
9. In order to prove the above said issues,
Petitioners in all the cases have been examined
themselves as PW1 to PW4 and got marked in all Ex.P.1
to 26 & Ex.P45 documents. Further Dr.R.Shashikanth,
Medical Officer/Assistant Surgeon, Columbia Asia
Hospital, Bengaluru examined as PW5 and got marked
Ex.P.27 to Ex.P.29 documents. Dr.Mahesh.M, Consultant
Orthopedic Surgeon, Dept., of Orthopedics, M.S.Ramaiah
Memorial Hospitals, Bangalore, examined as PW6 & 7
and got marked Ex.P.30 to Ex.P.34 documents,
Dr.R.Kantharaju, Orthopaedic Surgeon at General
Hospital has been examined as PW8 & PW9 and got
16
MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018
C/w.2642/2018
SCCH 5
marked Ex.P.35 to Ex.P.38 documents. Further
Dr.Gopalappa.H.M, R.M.O, Ramaiah Medical College
Hospital examined as PW10 and got marked Ex.P.39 to
Ex.P.44 documents. Per contra, Respondents have not
adduced any oral and documentary evidence.
10. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the
Petitioners and Respondents. The learned counsel for the
1st Respondent filed application under Sec.170 of M.V.Act
in all the cases which was allowed and taken on record.
Further the 1st Respondent counsel filed common written
arguments. The learned counsel for the Petitioners relied
on a decisions reported in;
i) 2018 ACJ PAGE 168 in between Kiran V/s.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.
ii) 2016 ACJ PAGE 888 in between Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s. R. Shivakumar and Anr.
17
MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018
C/w.2642/2018
SCCH 5
iii) 2015 ACJ PAGE 738 in between Mukesh Lodha
V/s. Durga Ram and Ors.
iv) 2014 ACJ PAGE 2782 in between Ali Imam
V/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., and Anr.
v) Civil Appeal No.2567/2020 in between Pappu
Deo Yadav V/s. Naresh Kumar and Ors.
vi) 2016 ACJ PAGE 2635 in between National
Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s. L. Paulraj and Ors.
vii) 2016 ACJ PAGE 1198 in between
D.R.Ramakrishna V/s. Ullas S. and Anr.
viii) 2015 ACJ PAGE 236 in between Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s. Savithri Hudge and Anr.
ix) 2015 ACJ PAGE 2771 in between Managing
Director, TNSTC V/s. S. Thenmozhi
x) Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 Table
xi) MFA No.6035/2011 (MV) in between
H.R.Srinivasa V/s. N.Shivakumar and Anr.
18
MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018
C/w.2642/2018
SCCH 5
xii) The medical complications following
splenectomy. picture of spleen and removal of spleen
effects to the petitioner.
11. My findings on the above issues are as under:
Issues No.1 in : In the Affirmative
all the cases
Issue No.2 in : Partly in the affirmative
all the cases
Issue No.3 in : As per final order for the
all the cases following:
::REASONS::
12. Issue No.1 and 2 in both the cases: As these
issues are interlinked with each other, they are taken
together for common discussion in order to avoid
repetition of facts and evidence.
13. As these claim petitions have been filed by the
Petitioners under Sec.166 of the M.V. Act, 1989, the
burden is on Petitioners to prove that, the alleged
accident had taken place because of the negligence on
19
MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018
C/w.2642/2018
SCCH 5
the part of the driver of the Eicher Cab bearing
Reg.No.KA51D1581.
14. In order to prove these issues, Petitioners in all
the cases have been examined themselves as PW1 to 4,
and other 6 witnesses as PW5 to PW10 and got marked
in all Ex.P.45 documents.
15. In order to prove this fact, PW1 has produced
Police records which are marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 i.e.,
FIR with Complaint, Mahazar, IMV Report, Wound
Certificate and Charge Sheet. On perusal of oral and
documentary evidence adduced by the Petitioners i.e.,
Ex.P.1 FIR which clearly discloses that, on 14.12.2017
when the Petitioners along with her relatives left
Avalahalli, Bengaluru on a Pilgrimage Tour to
Kabbalamma Temple, Muthathi Temple and Sangama in
Eicher Cab bearing Reg.KA51D1581, after the visits
20
MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018
C/w.2642/2018
SCCH 5
Petitioners and their relatives left Muthathi to visit
Sangama along with Eicher Cab at about 12.30 p.m.
when proceeding near Dodda Avalahalli, Sangama Main
Road Curve, the driver of the vehicle drove the same at a
high speed in a rash and negligent manner, so as to
endanger human life, lost control of the vehicle and
thereby vehicle got toppled, as a result of which
occupants of the vehicle sustained grievous injuries.
16. PW1 to 4 have been crossexamined by
Respondent No.1 counsel wherein they denied the
suggestions made by the 1st Respondent's counsel.
Further they deposed that on the date of accident they
have hired the Maxi Cab in order to go to Temple.
17. The only contention of the 1st Respondent is
that, the Petitioners are traveling as a gratuitous
passengers in the Maxi Cab and hence, the Respondent
21
MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018
C/w.2642/2018
SCCH 5
No.1 is not liable to pay compensation. The driver of the
said vehicle was not having valid and effective driving
licence to drive the type of vehicle at the time of accident.
But in order to substantiate these contentions, the 1 st
Respondent has not adduced any evidence nor produced
any documents. Moreover though the summons have
been served on the 2nd Respondent he was not come
forwarded to examine himself nor examined the driver of
the offending vehicle to deny the negligence on his part.
18. Moreover on perusal of Ex.P.5 Charge Sheet it
reveals that, this accident took place at Doddahalahalli
Main Road Curve, wherein the driver of the offending
vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner
and due to which the vehicle toppled and the occupants
of the said vehicle were fell down and sustained grievous
injuries.
22
MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018
C/w.2642/2018
SCCH 5
19. Further on perusal of the Ex.P.3 IMV Report,
it was mentioned that in the opinion of the IMV Inspector
the cause of the accident was not due to any mechanical
defects of the said Vehicle. Hence, an adverse inference
can be drawn against the driver of the offending vehicle
that this accident took place only due to the negligence
on his part.
20. Coming to the question regarding quantum of
compensation that has to be awarded to the Petitioner;
In MVC No.2642/2018:
PW1 i.e., Petitioner Smt.Bhagyalakshmi has
contended that, she was aged about 41 years at the time
of accident. In order to prove age PW1 has not produced
any documents. But on perusal of Ex.P.4 Wound
Certificate, the age of the Petitioner is mentioned as
40 years. Hence, based on the above document, it is
23
MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018
C/w.2642/2018
SCCH 5
considered that the Petitioner was aged 40 years as on
the date of the accident. As per the Sarla Varma's Case,
the proper multiplier applicable to the age group of 36 to
40 years is 15.
21. Petitioner has contended that, she was doing
business by running Provision Store under the name of
J.T. Provision Stores and also doing flower vending
business and in all she is earning a sum of Rs.20,000/
per month. But in order to prove her income and
employment, she has not produced any documents.
Hence, notional income of the Petitioner is taken as
Rs.9,000/ would suffice for calculating compensation.
22. Petitioner had sustained left open Type III C
fracture both bones forearm with near total amputation
at level of wrist and left mid shaft humerus fracture, for
24
MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018
C/w.2642/2018
SCCH 5
which, she has underwent external fixator application for
humerus forearm with debridement and exploration
revascularisation and repair. Further she underwent left
mid forearm amputation external fixator removal, ORIF
with plating for humerus. This fact has been
corroborated by the contents in Ex.P.4 Wound Certificate
and Ex.P.6 Discharge Summary issued by M.S.Ramaiah
Hospital wherein she took treatment as inpatient from
14.12.2017 to 23.12.2017. PW1 has also produced
Ex.P.7 which are Medical Bills of Rs.8,04,364/, Ex.P.8 &
9 Photograph with CD and Ex.P.10 Xray.
23. In the written arguments the 1st Respondent
counsel contends that, the consultation charges are also
included in the IP Final Bill. The Serial No.5 is the
consultation bill, which is given while the Petitioner is
inpatient and hospital number is also mentioned.
25
MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018
C/w.2642/2018
SCCH 5
Therefore, the said bill amount of Rs.500/ to be
deducted from the total amount. The other pharmacy
bills which are issued while the patient was inpatient are
also be deducted from the total amount. But in respect of
medical bills are concerned both the Petitioner and 1 st
Respondent's counsel have filed memo stating that,
Petitioner has filed list of medical bills wherein she has
added some of the medical bill/pharmacy bills which has
to be deducted in the total medical bill amount i.e., in
Page. No.4 Sl.No.74 of the list, due to inadvertence it was
mentioned as Rs.1,00,000/ instead of Rs.10,000/,
Hence an additional amount of Rs.90,000/ has to be
deducted in the said list. Thus in all, Rs.1,08,411.32 has
to be deducted out of the total medical bills of
Rs.8,04,364.32. Hence, the Petitioner is entitled for
Medical bill which comes to Rs.6,95,953/ rounded off to
26
MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018
C/w.2642/2018
SCCH 5
Rs.6,96,000/. Hence, the arguments addressed by the
1st Respondent's counsel cannot be considered.
24. The Petitioner has examined Dr.Mahesh M.
Consultant Orthopaedic and Spine Surgeon
M.S.Ramaiah Memorial Hospital as PW6 and got marked
Ex.P.30 to 32 i.e., Case Sheet, OPD Case File and Xray.
PW6 has assessed the total disability of 90% for left
upper limb and overall disability of 30% of the whole
body.
25. In the cross examination he admitted that, he
has treated the Petitioner personally and now the
humerus fracture is united. Further he denied the other
suggestions made by the 1st Respondent's counsel. If the
oral evidence of PW6 is perused, this accident was
occurred in the year 2017 and this PW6 has assessed
disability in the year 2020, that means, three years after
27
MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018
C/w.2642/2018
SCCH 5
the date of accident and his own admissions in the chief
examination reveals that, the Petitioner has underwent
total amputation at level of wrist and now the humerus
fracture was united. Hence, this Court deems fit that, for
the sake of compensation degree of disability for the
whole body will be taken as 30%.
26. In a recent decision relied on by the
Petitioner's counsel reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC
752 between Pappu Deo Yadav Vs Naresh Kumar and
Others wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
"7. Two questions arise for consideration:
one, whether in cases of permanent disablement
incurred as a result of a motor accident, the
claimant can seek, apart from compensation for
future loss of income, amounts for future
prospects too; and two, the extent of disability.
On the first question, the High court no doubt,
is technically correct in holding that Pranay
Sethi involved assessment of compensation in a
28
MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018
C/w.2642/2018
SCCH 5
case where the victim died. However, it went
wrong in saying that later, the three judge bench
decision in Jagdish was not binding, but rather
that the subsequent decision in Anant to the
extent that it did not award compensation for
future prospects, was binding. This court is of
the opinion that there was no justification for
the High Court to have read the previous rulings
of this court, to exclude the possibility of
compensation for future prospects in accident
cases involving serious injuries resulting in
permanent disablement. Such a narrow reading
of Pranay Sethi, is illogical, because it denies
altogether the possibility of the living victim
progressing further in life in accident casesand
admits such possibility of future prospects, in
case of the victim's death".
27. From the above decision it reveals that, in the
amputation case Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has
added 40% of income as future prospects as the claimant
is working as data entry operator. In the instant case
also, it is not in dispute that the claimant suffered such a
permanent disability as a result of injuries that he is not
29
MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018
C/w.2642/2018
SCCH 5
in a position of doing the specialized job. The loss of a
limb and its severity on that account is to be judged in
relation to the profession, vocation or business of the
victim; there cannot be a blind arithmetic formula for
ready application. On an overview of the principles
outlined in the previous decisions, it is apparent that the
income generating capacity of the appellant was
undoubtedly severely affected. May be, it is not to the
extent of 85%, given that he still has the use of one leg, is
young and as yet, hopefully training himself adequately
for some other calling.
28. In this case, the Petitioner sustained
amputation at level of wrist and other multiple fractures.
Since the Petitioner being an lady doing the business of
Provision Store and also Flower Vending Business, the
injuries sustained by her definitely cause her permanent
30
MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018
C/w.2642/2018
SCCH 5
disability throughout her life and hence the Petitioner
is entitled for 30% of future prospects.
29. PW6 in his chiefexamination admitted that,
the Petitioner needs one more surgery for removal of
implants and the cost will be above Rs.1,00,000/. But
he has not produced any estimation. Hence the Petitioner
is entitled for Rs.50,000/ towards future medical
expenses.
30. As per the Discharge Summary, the PW1 was
hospitalized for a period of 10 days, if one month income
is awarded under the head of loss of income during laid
up period and rest period certainly it would meet the
ends of justice. Considering the above facts, I deem it
just and reasonable to grant for compensation of
Rs.9,000/ under the head of loss of income during the
laid up period under rest period.
31
MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018
C/w.2642/2018
SCCH 5
31. The Petitioner is entitled for compensation
under the following heads:
Sl.No. Head of Compensation Amount in Rs.
I. PECUNIARY DAMAGES
(Special Damages)
1. Expenses relating to:
a)to treatment, hospitalization, 6,96,00000
medicines, transportation
b)nourishing food and 20,00000
miscellaneous expenditure
2. Loss of earnings which the
injured would have made had he
not been injured, comprising:
a) Loss of earnings during period 9,00000
of treatment
b) Loss of future earnings on 6,32,00000
account of permanent disability
+ 30% future prospects
(Rs.9,000/ x 30% = 2,700/
total income comes to
Rs.11,700/
11,700/x12x15x30%
= Rs.6,31,800/ rounded off
Rs.6,32,000/)
3. Future medical expenses 50,00000
32
MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018
C/w.2642/2018
SCCH 5
II. NONPECUNIARY DAMAGES
(General Damages)
4. Damages for pain, suffering and 2,00,00000
trauma as a consequence of the
injuries
5. Loss of amenities 50,00000
a) Compensation for 50,00000
Disfigurement
b) Compensation for special diet, 30,00000
attendant and conveyance
charges
6. Loss of expectation of life
(shortening of normal longevity)
Total 17,37,00000
32. Hence, the Petitioner Smt.Bhagyalakshmi. is
entitled for total compensation of Rs.17,37,000/ with
interest at the rate of 9% p.a. (excluding future medical
expenses of Rs.50,000/) from the date of petition till its
realization.
33. Coming to the question regarding quantum of
compensation that has to be awarded to the Petitioner;
33
MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018
C/w.2642/2018
SCCH 5
In MVC No.2649/2018:
PW2 i.e., Petitioner Smt.K. Sunitha has contended
that, she was aged about 48 years at the time of
accident. In order to prove age of the Petitioner, PW2 has
not produced any documents. But on perusal of Ex.P.11
Wound Certificate, age of the Petitioner is mentioned as
48 years. Hence, based on the above document, it is
considered that the Petitioner was aged 48 years as on
the date of the accident. As per the Sarla Varma's Case,
the proper multiplier applicable to the age group of 46 to
50 years is 13.
34. PW2 has contended that, she was running a
Stationery Shop and earning a sum of Rs.20,000/ p.m.
In order to prove her income she has not produced any
documents. Hence, it is just and proper to consider the
34
MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018
C/w.2642/2018
SCCH 5
notional income of the Petitioner as Rs.9,000/ for
calculating compensation.
35. PW2 had sustained thoracic D11 & D12
compression fracture and right lateral malleoli fracture,
for which, she underwent posterior instrumentation and
stabilization from thoracic D9 to Lumbar L2 with
decompression and right lateral malleoli fracture was
treated conservatively. This has been corroborated by the
contents of Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.12 Wound Certificate and
Ex.P.19 Discharge Summary issued by M.S.Ramaiah
Memorial Hospital wherein she took treatment as
inpatient from 14.12.2017 to 23.12.2017. PW2 has also
produced Ex.P.13 Medical Bills to the tune of
Rs.1,93,332/, Ex.P.14 Xray and Ex.P.45 Bill Receipt
Voucher along with Inpatient Medical Bill.
35
MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018
C/w.2642/2018
SCCH 5
36. In the written arguments the 1st Respondent
counsel contends that, the Petitioner has produced 4
physiotherapy bills issued by Focus Diagnostic Centre for
the amount of Rs.75,000/. The Sl.No.53 it is stated
home visit to physiotherapy on 26.03.2018 and charged
Rs.30,000/ and bill issued on 25.03.2018. In Sl. No.56
the bill issued on 10.06.2018 for physiotherapy charges
from 10.02.2018 to 10.06.2018 and bill No. is 289. In
Sl.No.65, the bill issued on 10.08.2018 for physiotherapy
charges from 10.08.2018 to 09.09.2018 and the bill
number is 290. In Sl.No.74, the bill issued on 10.10.2018
for physiotherapy charges from 10.10.2018 to
09.11.2018 and the bill No.is 296. The Sl.No.56, 65 and
74 are issued on 10.06.2018, 10.08.2018 and
10.10.2018 and bill numbers are 289, 290 & 296
respectively. The bills issued on different dates but the
36
MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018
C/w.2642/2018
SCCH 5
bill numbers are given serialwise. Some bills are issued
before commencing treatment and some bills are issued
after giving treatment. The bill No.287 issued on
10.08.2018, but the Bill No.278 issued on 10.10.2018 in
MVC No.2650/2018. In this case, bill No.250 issued on
25.03.2018, but the Bill No.249 in MVC No.2650/2018
was issued on 10.04.2018. It clearly disclose that the
bills issued by Focus Diagnostic Centre are not
authenticated bills. The bills in Sl.No.81, 82 & 84 are
issued on 18.11.2019, 17.12.2019 & 23.12.2019 by the
Diagnostic Centres for general blood tests and other
checkups, which are not related to the accidental
injuries. In respect of medical bills are concerned both
the Petitioner and 1st Respondent's counsel have filed
memo stating that, Petitioner has filed list of medical bills
wherein she has added some of the medical
37
MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018
C/w.2642/2018
SCCH 5
bill/pharmacy bills which has to be deducted in the total
medical bill amount i.e., out of the inpatient medical bills
of Rs.2,99,610.20, the Mediclaim has reimbursed
Rs.2,63,233.20. Hence, the Petitioner has paid a sum of
Rs.36,377/ to the hospital, which has to be added to the
list of medical bills. Hence, the total medical bills comes
to Rs.1,96,546.83 which is rounded off Rs.1,97,000/.
37. The Petitioner has examined Dr.Mahesh M.,
Consultant Orthopaedic and Spine Surgeon at
M.S.Ramaiah Hospital as PW7 and got marked Ex.P.33
& Ex.P.34 i.e., Case Sheet and Xray. PW7 has assessed
total disability of 90% for spine and overall disability of
30% for the whole body.
38. PW7 in the crossexamination deposed that,
he has treated the Petitioner personally. She was
operated spine fracture and ankle was treated
38
MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018
C/w.2642/2018
SCCH 5
conservatively. At the time of discharge the condition of
the Petitioner was stable. After discharge she came for
further treatment around 10 times. Now the fractures are
united. If the oral evidence of PW7 is perused, this
accident was occurred in the year 2017 and this PW7
has assessed disability in the year 2020, that means,
three years after the date of accident and his own
admissions in the chiefexamination reveals that,
fractures are united. Hence, this Court considers the
disability to an extent of 18% to the whole body is
sufficient for calculation of quantum of compensation.
39. As per the Discharge Summary, the Petitioner
was hospitalized for a period of ten days, if one month
income is awarded under the head of loss of income
during laid up period and rest period certainly it would
meet the ends of justice. Considering the above facts, I
39
MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018
C/w.2642/2018
SCCH 5
deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation of
Rs.9,000/ under the head of loss of income during the
laid up period under rest period.
40. The Petitioner is entitled for compensation
under the following heads:
Sl.No. Head of Compensation Amount in Rs.
I. PECUNIARY DAMAGES
(Special Damages)
1. Expenses relating to:
a) to treatment, hospitalization, 1,97,00000
medicines, transportation
b)nourishing food and 10,00000
miscellaneous expenditure
2. Loss of earnings which the
injured would have made had he
not been injured, comprising:
a) Loss of earnings during period 9,00000
of treatment
b) Loss of future earnings on 2,53,00000
account of permanent disability
(Rs.9,000/x12x13x18%
= Rs.2,52,720/ rounded off
Rs.2,53,000/)
40
MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018
C/w.2642/2018
SCCH 5
3. Future medical expenses
II. NONPECUNIARY DAMAGES
(General Damages)
4. Damages for pain, suffering and 75,00000
trauma as a consequence of the
injuries
5. Loss of amenities ( and/or loss 20,00000
of prospects of marriage)
6. Loss of expectation of life
(shortening of normal longevity)
Total 5,64,00000
41. Hence, the Petitioner Smt.Sunitha K. is
entitled for total compensation of Rs.5,64,000/ with
interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition
till its realization.
42. Coming to the question regarding quantum of
compensation that has to be awarded to the Petitioner;
41
MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018
C/w.2642/2018
SCCH 5
In MVC No.2650/2018:
PW3 i.e., Petitioner Smt.Channamma has
contended that, she was aged about 45 years at the time
of accident. In order to prove age of the Petitioner, PW3
has not produced any documents. But on perusal of
Ex.P.15 Wound Certificate, age of the Petitioner is
mentioned as 42 years. Hence, based on the above
document, it is considered that the Petitioner was aged
42 years as on the date of the accident. As per the Sarla
Varma's Case, the proper multiplier applicable to the age
group of 41 to 45 years is 14.
43. PW3 has contended that, she was Tailor by
profession and earning a sum of Rs.15,000/ p.m. In
order to prove her income she has not produced any
documents. Hence, it is just and proper to consider the
42
MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018
C/w.2642/2018
SCCH 5
notional income of the Petitioner as Rs.9,000/ for
calculating compensation.
44. PW3 had sustained blunt injury to the spine
with linear fracture of right lamina and right transverse
process and vertebrae, fracture left transverse process D1
vertebrae body, linear fracture of right transverse L1
vertebral body, compression fracture of D5 and D6
vertebral, blunt injury to the chest with displaced
fracture of posterior left injury, left pneumothorax,
contusion of left posterobical segment, left haemothorax
fracture 3rd to 6th and 4th to 6th ribs, blunt injury to
abdomen with spleen accerated lateral surface
periosphenic haemobona with haemperitoneum. PW3
was treated conservatively in the hospital.
45. This has been corroborated by the contents of
Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.16 Wound Certificate and Discharge
43
MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018
C/w.2642/2018
SCCH 5
Summary issued by Columbia Asia Hospital wherein she
took treatment as inpatient from 15.12.2017 to
21.12.2017. PW3 has also produced Ex.P.17 Medical
Bills to the tune of Rs.1,85,115/ and Ex.P.19 C.D.
46. In the written arguments the 1st Respondent
counsel contends that, the Petitioner has produced 3
physiotherapy bills issued by Focus Diagnostic Centre for
amount of Rs.45,000/. In Sl.No.10 of the bill issued on
10.04.2018 for physiotherapy charges from 26.02.2018
to 10.04.2018 and bill No.249. In Sl.No.11, the bill
issued on 10.08.2018 for physiotherapy charges from
09.07.2018 to 10.08.2018 and the bill no. is 287. In
Sl.No.12, the bill issued on 10.10.2018 for physiotherapy
charges from 10.09.2018 to 10.10.2018 and the bill no.
is 278. The bill no.287 issued on 10.08.2018, but the bill
no.278 was issued on 10.10.2018. The bill no.250 issued
44
MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018
C/w.2642/2018
SCCH 5
on 25.03.2018 in MVC No.2649/2018, but the Bill
No.249 in this case was issued on 10.04.2018. The
Sl.No.56, 65 and 74 are issued on 10.06.2018,
10.08.2018 and 10.10.2018 and the Bill Nos. are 289,
290 & 296 respectively in MVC No.2649/2018. The bills
issued on different dates but the bill numbers are given
serial wise in MVC No.2649/2018. It clearly disclose that
the said bills are not authenticated bills.
47. The Petitioner has examined
Dr.R.Shashikanth, Medical Officer/Asst. Surgeon,
Columbia Asia Hospital as PW5 and got marked Ex.P.27
to 29 i.e., Inpatient Record, MLC Extract and Police
Intimation.
48. PW5 in the crossexamination he deposed
that, he has treated initially to the Petitioner and the
treated Doctors are very much available in the hospital.
45
MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018
C/w.2642/2018
SCCH 5
As per records he know the line of treatment taken by the
Petitioner.
49. Petitioner Channamma has also adduced the
evidence of Dr.R.Kantharaju, Orthopaedic Surgeon at
General Hospital, Devanahalli as PW8 and got marked
Ex.P.35 OPD Card and Ex.P.36 Xray. PW8 has assessed
disability due to compressive fracture of D5 and D6 with
persistent pain in the back not responding to analgesics
is 20% for whole body.
50. In the affidavit evidence PW8 has stated that,
Petitioner had sustained spleenic injury, mild left
pneumothorax and heamothorax, multiple rib fractures,
compression fracture of D5 and D6 vertebrae, fracture of
right lamina an right transfers process of C6 vertebra
and fracture of the left transfers process of the D1
46
MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018
C/w.2642/2018
SCCH 5
vertebral body, for which, she was managed
conservatively for all the injuries.
51. PW8 in the crossexamination deposed that,
he has not treated the Petitioner personally. Now the
fractures are united but compression in vertibra. Since
the Petitioner has sustained spine fracture particular
limb disability cannot be assessed. Except this all other
suggestions are denied. If the oral evidence of PW8 is
perused, this accident was occurred in the year 2017 and
this PW8 has assessed disability in the year 2020, that
means, three years after the date of accident and his own
admissions in the chief examination reveals that,
compression fracture of D5 and D6. Hence, this Court
considers the disability to an extent of 12% to the
whole body is sufficient for calculation of quantum of
compensation.
47
MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018
C/w.2642/2018
SCCH 5
52. As per the Discharge Summary, the Petitioner
was hospitalized for a period of seven days, if one month
income is awarded under the head of loss of income
during laid up period and rest period certainly it would
meet the ends of justice. Considering the above facts, I
deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation of
Rs.9,000/ under the head of loss of income during the
laid up period under rest period.
53. The Petitioner is entitled for compensation
under the following heads:
Sl.No. Head of Compensation Amount in Rs.
I. PECUNIARY DAMAGES
(Special Damages)
1. Expenses relating to:
a) to treatment, hospitalization, 1,85,00000
medicines, transportation
(Rs.1,85,115/ rounded off
Rs.1,85,000/)
b)nourishing food and 10,00000
48
MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018
C/w.2642/2018
SCCH 5
miscellaneous expenditure
2. Loss of earnings which the
injured would have made had he
not been injured, comprising:
a) Loss of earnings during period 9,00000
of treatment
b) Loss of future earnings on 1,81,00000
account of permanent disability
(Rs.9,000/x12x14x12%
= Rs.1,81,440/ rounded off
Rs.1,81,000/)
3. Future medical expenses
II. NONPECUNIARY DAMAGES
(General Damages)
4. Damages for pain, suffering and 75,00000
trauma as a consequence of the
injuries
5. Loss of amenities ( and/or loss 20,00000
of prospects of marriage)
6. Loss of expectation of life
(shortening of normal longevity)
Total 4,80,00000
54. Hence, the Petitioner Smt.Channamma is
entitled for total compensation of Rs.4,80,000/ with
49
MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018
C/w.2642/2018
SCCH 5
interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition
till its realization.
55. Coming to the question regarding quantum of
compensation that has to be awarded to the Petitioner;
In MVC No.2651/2018:
PW4 i.e., Petitioner Smt.D.M.Sujatha has
contended that, she was aged about 31 years at the time
of accident. In order to prove age of the Petitioner, PW4
has not produced any documents. But on perusal of
Ex.P.20 Wound Certificate, age of the Petitioner is
mentioned as 30 years. Hence, based on the above
document, it is considered that the Petitioner was aged
30 years as on the date of the accident. As per the Sarla
Varma's Case, the proper multiplier applicable to the age
group of 26 to 30 years is 17.
50
MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018
C/w.2642/2018
SCCH 5
56. PW4 has contended that, she was doing
Vegetable Business and earning a sum of
Rs.18,000/ p.m. In order to prove her income she has
not produced any documents. Hence, it is just and
proper to consider the notional income of the
Petitioner as Rs.9,000/ for calculating compensation.
57. PW4 had sustained spleenic injury and
fracture of left sacral ala, for which, she was operated
and emergency spleenectomy was done and managed
conservatively for fracture of sacrum. This has been
corroborated by the contents of Ex.P.20 and Ex.P.21
Wound Certificate and Discharge Summary issued by
M.S.Ramaiah Memorial Hospital wherein she took
treatment as inpatient from 14.12.2017 to 25.12.2017.
PW4 has also produced Ex.P.22 Medical Bills to the tune
51
MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018
C/w.2642/2018
SCCH 5
of Rs.2,20,871/, Ex.P.23 Medical Prescriptions, Ex.P.24
and 25 Photographs with CD and Ex.P.26 Xray.
58. In the written arguments the 1st Respondent
counsel contends that, the Petitioner has produced one
physiotherapy bill issued by Focus Diagnostic Centre for
the amount of Rs.15,000/. In Sl. No.52 the bill issued
on 10.10.2018 for physiotherapy charges from
10.10.2018 to 09.10.2018 and bill no.297. The bills
issued on different dates but the bill numbers are given
serial wise by the Focus Diagnostic Centre. Some bills
are issued before commencing treatment and some bills
are issued after giving treatment. The bill issued by
Focus Diagnostic Centre is not an authenticated bill. The
bills in Sl.No.55 & 56 for Rs.23,790/ & 7,390/ issued
on 03.07.2019 and 05.07.2019 by Inner Health Revealed
and Sl. No.62 issued on 07.10.2019 for Rs.14,400/ by
52
MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018
C/w.2642/2018
SCCH 5
Manipal Hospital for general blood tests and other
checkups, which are not related to the accidental
injuries. In respect of medical bills are considered both
the Petitioner and 1st Respondent's counsel have filed
memo stating that, Petitioner has filed list of medical bills
at Page Nos.1 to 3 - Sl.Nos.5 to 16, 17 to 40, 41 & 42,
totally a sum of Rs.32,767.91, which has to be deducted
in the total bill amount. Hence, the total medical bills
comes to Rs.1,88,103.14 which is rounded off
Rs.1,88,000/.
59. The Petitioner has examined Dr.R.Kantharaju,
Orthopaedic Surgeon at General Hospital, Devanahalli as
PW9 and got marked Ex.P.37 & Ex.P.38 i.e., OPD Card
and Xray. PW9 has assessed disability due to pain in
the lower back radiating to left lower limb is 25%.
53
MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018
C/w.2642/2018
SCCH 5
60. PW9 in the crossexamination deposed that,
he has not treated the Petitioner personally. The
Petitioner has undergone only conservative treatment.
Now the fractures are united but compression in
vertebra. If there is a compression it will be noticed in the
Xray. Except this all other suggestions were denied by
PW 9.
61. PW4 has also adduced the evidence of
Dr.Gopalappa H.M. working at Ramaiah Medical College
Hospital as PW10 and got marked Ex.P.39 to 44 i.e.,
Inpatient Record, Outpatient Record, CTScan Films,
Xray, Police Intimation Record and MLC Extract.
62. PW10 in the chiefexamination deposed that,
as per Ex.P.20 he has issued the wound certificate and at
Ex.P.39 and 40 the accident date was mentioned as
14.12.2017 but in the wound certificate by oversight it
54
MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018
C/w.2642/2018
SCCH 5
was mentioned as 2018 instead of 2017. Further in the
crossexamination he deposed that, he has not treated
the Petitioner and the treated Doctors were till now
working in their hospital. Further he denied the other
suggestions made by the 1st Respondent 's counsel.
63. At the time of arguments the learned counsel
for the Petitioner has relied on medical complication
following splenectomy reported in Article in Press
wherein it was observed that,
"Splenectomy is attended by medical
complications, principally infectious and
thromboembolic; the frequency of
complications varies with the conditions that
led to splenectomy (hematologic splenectomy,
trauma, presence of portal hypertension). Most
infectious complications are caused by
encapsulated bacteria (Meningococcus,
Pneumococcus, Hemophilus). These occur
mainly in children and somewhat less
commonly in adults within the first tow years
following splenectomy. Postsplenectomy
55
MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018
C/w.2642/2018
SCCH 5
infections are potentially severe with
overwhelming postsplenectomy infection
(OPSI) and this justifies preventive measures
(prophylactic antibiotics, appropriate
immunizations, patient education) and
demands prompt antibiotic management with
thirdgeneration cephalosporins for any post
splenectomy fever. Thromboembolic
complications can involve both the caval
system (deepvein thrombophlebitis, pulmonary
embolism) and the portal system. Portal vein
thrombosis occurs more commonly in patients
with myeloproliferative disease and cirrhosis.
No thromboembolic prophylaxis is
recommended apart from perioperative low
molecular weight heparin However, some
authors choose to prescribe a short course of
antiplatelet medication if the post
splenectomy patient develops significant
thrombocytosis. Thrombosis of the portal or
caval venous system requires prolonged
warfarin anticoagulation for 3 to 6 months.
Finally, some studies have suggested an
increase in the long term incidence of cancer
in splenectomized patients".
56
MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018
C/w.2642/2018
SCCH 5
64. If the oral evidence of PW9 is perused, this
accident was occurred in the year 2017 and this PW9
has assessed disability in the year 2020, that means,
three years after the date of accident and his own
admissions in the chief examination reveals that,
fracture of ulna of sacrum on the left side was united.
Hence, this Court considers the disability to an extent
of 15% to the whole body is sufficient for calculation of
quantum of compensation.
65. As per the Discharge Summary, the Petitioner
was hospitalized for a period of 12 days, if one month
income is awarded under the head of loss of income
during laid up period and rest period certainly it would
meet the ends of justice. Considering the above facts, I
deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation of
57
MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018
C/w.2642/2018
SCCH 5
Rs.9,000/ under the head of loss of income during the
laid up period under rest period.
66. PW9 in his chief examination stated that,
since Petitioner has undergone splenectomy, she is prone
for repeated infections in the body. Moreover though the
fractures are united but compression in vertebra. Hence
the Petitioner is entitled for future medical expenses of
Rs.20,000/.
67. The Petitioner is entitled for compensation
under the following heads:
Sl.No. Head of Compensation Amount in Rs.
I. PECUNIARY DAMAGES
(Special Damages)
1. Expenses relating to:
a) to treatment, hospitalization, 1,88,00000
medicines, transportation
b)nourishing food and 10,00000
miscellaneous expenditure
2. Loss of earnings which the
58
MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018
C/w.2642/2018
SCCH 5
injured would have made had he
not been injured, comprising:
a) Loss of earnings during period 9,00000
of treatment
b) Loss of future earnings on 2,76,00000
account of permanent disability
(Rs.9,000/x12x17x15%
= Rs.2,75,400/ rounded off
Rs.2,76,000/)
3. Future medical expenses 20,00000
II. NONPECUNIARY DAMAGES
(General Damages)
4. Damages for pain, suffering and 75,00000
trauma as a consequence of the
injuries
5. Loss of amenities ( and/or loss 20,00000
of prospects of marriage)
6. Loss of expectation of life
(shortening of normal longevity)
Total 5,98,00000
68. Hence, the Petitioner Smt.D.M.Sujatha is
entitled for total compensation of Rs.5,98,000/ with
interest at the rate of 9% p.a. (excluding future
59
MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018
C/w.2642/2018
SCCH 5
medical expenses of Rs.20,000/) from the date of
petition till its realization.
69. As far as awarding of interest on the
compensation amount is concerned, in a recent decision
reported in 2018 ACJ 1300 between Mangla Ram V/s.
Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., and others (in CA
Nos.2499 of 2018 arising out of SLP(C) Nos.2814142
of 2017 decided on 06.04.2018) wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court with regard to interest at the rate of
9% p.a. on the compensation amount, in para No.28 of
the judgment held that, 'The appellant would also be
entitled to interest on the total amount of
compensation at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on
the compensation from the date of filing of the
claim petition till date of realization" and also by
60
MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018
C/w.2642/2018
SCCH 5
following the principles laid down in (2018) ACJ 1020 in
between ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co., Ltd.,
V/s. Ajay Kumar Mohanty and another decided on
6.3.2018 (in CA Nos.7181 of 2015 and 1879 of 2016)
at para No.1 and 12 Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
"QuantumInterestTribunal allowed interest at the
rate of 7.5 per cent which was reduced by High Court
to 7 per centApex Court allowed interest at 9 per
cent per annum from the date of filing of claim
application". In view of the above judgments with regard
to the rate of interest and also it is settled principles of
law that, while awarding interest on the compensation
amount, the Court has to take into account the rate of
interest on the Nationalized Bank and the rate of interest
at the rate of 9% p.a. cannot said to be on the higher
61
MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018
C/w.2642/2018
SCCH 5
side. Accordingly, the Petitioners in MVC No.2642/2018,
2649/2018 to 2651/2018 are entitled to interest at the
rate of 9% p.a.
70. Coming to the question of fixing the liability to
pay the compensation to the Petitioners, Respondent
No.1 being the Insurance Company had issued policy in
favour of Respondent No.2 in respect of Eicher Cab
bearing Reg.No.KA51D1581 vide its Policy
No.30276305 valid from 23.03.2017 to 22.03.2018 which
is effective as on the date of the accident. Accordingly,
Respondents No.1 and 2 being the Insurer and
R.C.Owner of the above said offending vehicle are jointly
and severally liable to pay compensation to the
Petitioners. However, Respondent No.1 has to indemnify
Respondent No.2. Accordingly, Issue No.1 is answered
62
MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018
C/w.2642/2018
SCCH 5
in affirmative and Issue No.2 in partly affirmative, in
all the cases.
71. Issue No.3 in MVC No.2642/2018,
2649/2018 to 2651/2018:
On the basis of above discussions, I proceed to pass
the following:
::ORDER::
Claim petition of Petitioner in MVC No.2642/2018, 2649/2018 to 2651/2018 are partly allowed with costs.
Petitioner in MVC No.2642/2018 is entitled for compensation of Rs.17,37,000/ (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Thirty Seven Thousand Only) with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. (excluding future medical expenses of Rs.50,000/) from the date of petition till realization.
Petitioner in MVC No.2649/2018 is entitled for compensation of Rs.5,64,000/ 63 MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018 C/w.2642/2018 SCCH 5 (Rupees Five Lakhs Sixty Four Thousand Only) with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.
Petitioner in MVC No.2650/2018 is entitled for compensation of Rs.4,80,000/ (Rupees Four Lakhs Eighty Thousand Only) with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.
Petitioner in MVC No.2651/2018 is entitled for compensation of Rs.5,98,000/ (Rupees Five Lakhs Ninety Eight Thousand Only) with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. (excluding future medical expenses of Rs.20,000/) from the date of petition till realization.
The Respondent No.1 is liable to pay the compensation to the Petitioners in all the cases and shall deposit the said amount within 60 days from the date of this order.
64MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018 C/w.2642/2018 SCCH 5 On deposit of compensation amount pertaining to Petitioner in all the cases, 75% of the amount to be released in their favour through epayment directly to the Petitioner's account by obtaining the Bank A/c details, on proper identification. Remaining 25% to be kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank, for a period of three years, in their respective names.
Fee of counsel for Petitioners is fixed at Rs.1,000/ in all the cases.
Original judgment shall be kept in MVC No.2642/2018 and copy of the same in MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018.
Draw award accordingly in all the claims. (Dictated to the stenographer directly on the computer, typed by her, thereof is corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 29th day of January, 2021) (SHARMILA S.) VIII ADDL. JUDGE & ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU.
65MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018 C/w.2642/2018 SCCH 5 ::A N N E X U R E::
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS: PW1 : Smt. Bhagyalakshmi PW2 : Smt. K. Sunitha PW3 : Smt. Channamma PW4 : Smt. D.M. Sujatha PW5 : Dr. R. Shashikanth PW6 : Dr. Mahesh M. PW7 : Dr. Mahesh M. PW8 : Dr. R. Kantharaju PW9 : Dr. R. Kantharaju PW10 : Dr. Gopalappa H.M. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS: Ex.P.1 : Copy of FIR with Complaint Ex.P.2 : Copy of Mahazar Ex.P.3 : Copy of IMV Report Ex.P.4 : Copy of Wound Certificate Ex.P.5 : Copy of Charge Sheet Ex.P.6 : Discharge Summary Ex.P.7 : Medical Bills (77 in Nos.) of Rs.8,04,364/ Ex.P.8 & : 1 Photographs with 1 CD Ex.P.9 Ex.P.10 : Xray (2 in Nos.) Ex.P.11 : Copy of Wound Certificate 66 MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018 C/w.2642/2018 SCCH 5 Ex.P.12 : Discharge Summary Ex.P.13 : Medical Bills (84 in Nos.) of Rs.1,93,332/ Ex.P.14 : Xray Ex.P.15 : Copy of Wound Certificate Ex.P.16 : Discharge Summary Ex.P.17 : Medical Bills (12 in Nos.) of Rs.1,85,115/ Ex.P.18 : Xray (4 in Nos.) Ex.P.19 : 1 CD Ex.P.20 : Copy of Wound Certificate Ex.P.21 : Discharge Summary Ex.P.22 : Medical Bills (62 in Nos.) of Rs.2,20,871/ Ex.P.23 : Medical Prescriptions (6 in Nos.) Ex.P.24 & : 3 Photographs with 1 CD Ex.P.25 Ex.P.26 : Xray (2 in Nos.) Ex.P.27 : Inpatient Record Ex.P.28 : MLC Extract Ex.P.29 : Police Intimation Ex.P.30 : Case Sheet Ex.P.31 : OPD Case File Ex.P.32 : Xray Ex.P.33 : Case Sheet Ex.P.34 : Xray Ex.P.35 : OPD Card Ex.P.36 : Xray Ex.P.37 : OPD Card Ex.P.38 : Xray Ex.P.39 : Inpatient Record 67 MVC No.2649/2018 to 2651/2018 C/w.2642/2018 SCCH 5 Ex.P.40 : Outpatient Record Ex.P.41 : CTScan Films Ex.P.42 : Xray Ex.P.43 : Police Intimation Record Ex.P.44 : MLC Extract Ex.P.45 : Bill Receipt Voucher along with Inpatient Medical Bill LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS: NIL LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS: NIL (SHARMILA S.) VIII ADDL. JUDGE & ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU.