Bangalore District Court
Miss.Ranjitha vs United India Ins.Co.Ltd on 13 April, 2017
BEFORE THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU.
(SCCH.13)
DATE: THIS THE 13th DAY OF APRIL 2017
PRESENT :
SMT.PANCHAKSHARI M., M.Com., LL.B.
II Addl. Small Causes Judge &
XXVIII ACMM, Bengaluru.
M.V.C.No.2650 of 2015 .
PETITIONER: Miss.Ranjitha, 18 years
D/o Manjunath Prasad,
No.29/17, Krishnappa Building,
4th Cross, Pipelane,
Vijayanagar,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.G.V.Vasudeva Murthy, Adv.)
vs.
RESPONDENTS: 1. United India Ins.Co.Ltd.,
6th floor, Krishi Bhavan,
Near Hudson Circle,
Nrupathunga Road,
Bengaluru-560 001.
Policy No.0705813112P303087437
Dated 15.03.2013 to 14.03.2014.
2.Sri.Shrivathsa B.,
177, 7th Cross, 4th Main,
Sriram Nagar, M.L.Puram,
Bengaluru-560 086.
(RC owner of vehicle bearing No.
KA-04-HK-0211)
2 MVC.2650/2015
SCCH.13
(By Sri.V.R.Muralidhar, Adv. for R1
Smt.T.Sumangala and Ranjith
Prakash, Advs. for R.2)
-o0o-
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed this petition under Sec.166 of M.V.Act. 1989, claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- on account of injuries sustained by her in the motor vehicle accident.
2. The brief facts of the petitioner's case are as follows:-
That on 08.03.2014, at about 1.50 p.m., she was standing on foot path near Sarjpur Road junction, Hosur Road, Madivala, Bengaluru, at that time, a motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-04-HK-211 which was coming from south to north, at a very high speed, rash and negligently without observing any traffic norms and regulations, dashed against her, due to which, she fell down and sustained injuries. Immediately, she was shifted to St.John Hospital, wherein POP was applied, but due to increase of pain and swelling, she took treatment at Sparsh hospital wherein she was treated 3 MVC.2650/2015 SCCH.13 as an inpatient and undergone surgery and discharged on 19.03.2014. She spent nearly Rs.2,00,000/- for her medical, conveyance, nourishment and other incidental charges. The Madivala Police have registered a case against the rider of the said motor cycle in crime No.61/2014 punishable under Sec.279 and 337 of IPC.
Prior to the accident, she was hale and healthy and was a student, after the accident, she could not pursue her education and now she is suffering permanent disability, she is not able to lift weight, not able to stand for long time, to drive the vehicle and climbs stairs, walk or run. Hence, she claims compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- from the respondents with costs and interest at 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till realization. On the above grounds, the petitioner has prayed for allowing the petition.
3. Having served with the notice, the respondents No.1 and 2 have appeared through their counsels and 4 MVC.2650/2015 SCCH.13 filed the written statements with the following contentions:-
4. The respondent No.1 in its written statement had denied the issuance of policy in respect of motor cycle bearing No.KA-04-HK-211 and its validity and also denied the occurrence , mode of the accident and also involvement of the vehicle and contended that the petitioner herself is negligent who has carelessly tried to cross the road without observing the vehicles moving on the road.
5. The respondent No.2 in its written statement had contended that the motor cycle bearing No.KA-04- HK-211 was insured with the respondent No.2 and the policy was in force as on the date of accident and the rider of the said motor cycle had valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident. He had also denied the occurrence of accident and contended that the accident was caused due to the negligence on the part of the petitioner who without observing the traffic 5 MVC.2650/2015 SCCH.13 tried to cross the road, which resulted in the alleged accident.
6. Both the respondents have denied the age, amount spent by the petitioner for medical expenses and disability as contended by the petitioner and contended that the compensation claimed is fanciful, speculative and exorbitant and without any basis. On the above grounds, both the respondents prayed for dismissal of the petition.
7. On the basis of the above rival contentions of the parties, the following issues have been framed:-
1. Whether the petitioner proves that she had sustained grievous injuries in road traffic accident that alleged to have been occurred on 08.03.2014 at about 01.50 p.m. near Sarjapura junction, Hosur Main Road, Madivala, Bengaluru, was due to rash & negligent riding of the Motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-04-HK-211 by its rider as alleged in the petition?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation? If so, to what extends and from whom?
3. What order or award?
8. In order to prove the petition claim, the petitioner & doctor were examined as P.W.1 and 2 and 6 MVC.2650/2015 SCCH.13 got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to P.16. The respondent No.1 examined CMO of St.John Hospital and its Asst.Manager as RWs1 and 2 and got marked Exs.R1to R3.
9. Heard the arguments of both the sides .
10. Taking into consideration, the oral and documentary evidence placed before the Tribunal, my findings 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 final order for the following:-
REASONS
11. Issue No.1 :-
The petitioner being injured has filed the claim petition, claiming compensation in respect of injuries sustained by her in road traffic accident. As per the contention of the petitioner that on 08.03.2014, at about 1.50 p.m., she was standing on foot path near Sarjpur Road junction, Hosur Road, Madivala, 7 MVC.2650/2015 SCCH.13 Bengaluru, at that time, a motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-04-HK-211 which was coming from south to north, at a very high speed, rash and negligently without observing any traffic norms and regulations, dashed against her, due to which, she fell down and sustained injuries.
12. The respondent No.1 is the Insurer and the respondent No.2 is the Owner of the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-04-HK-211. Both the respondents have appeared through their respective advocates and filed their objection statement.
13. The respondent No.1 had denied the fact of rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-04-HK-211 by its rider. On the contrary, it had contended that the petitioner carelessly crossed the road without observing the vehicles movements on the road. On the other hand, the respondent No.2 being the owner of the said motor cycle had admitted that he is the RC owner and contended that his vehicle is validly insured with the respondent NO.1. Even, he 8 MVC.2650/2015 SCCH.13 had also denied the fact of rash and negligent riding on the part of the rider of the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-04-HK-211. He had also contended that the accident taken place due to the negligence of the petitioner who without observing the traffic tried to cross the road which resulted in the alleged accident.
14. The petitioner being a student having sustained injury got examined herself as PW1 and in her affidavit filed for examination in chief, she had reiterated the petition averments. In support of her oral evidence, she has produced documents which are marked as Exs.P1 to P14. Ex.P1 is the FIR, Ex.P2 is the complaint and Ex.P7 is the Charge sheet. In her complaint, she had clearly mentioned that on 08.03.2014, at about 1.50 p.m. when she was waiting to cross the Hosur road Sarjapura junction, one Motor bike came and caused the accident. The rider of the motor bike took her to St.John's Hospital, they given treatment and did plastering bandage. At the request of the rider of the motor bike, she had taken back the complaint which was given before the Madivala Traffic 9 MVC.2650/2015 SCCH.13 police, but now as there is ligament tear, she had again come before the police and gave complaint. So, on the basis of Ex.P2-Complaint, FIR was lodged and the police have drawn Mahazar as per Ex.P3. The fact of petitioner having sustained injury in Road Traffic Accident is not in dispute. Both the respondents have contended that as the petitioner attempted to cross the busy road suddenly, the alleged accident taken place. So, from this contention of the respondents, it can be made out that the accident had taken place. Ex.P6 is the Wound certificate which makes out that the petitioner had sustained grievous as well as simple injuries in Road Traffic Accident which took place on 08.03.2014. The MLC is also registered as noted in Ex.P6. Ex.P8 is the Discharge summary of Sparsh Hospital, which makes out that the petitioner having sustained injury in road traffic accident, she was treated as inpatient from 17.03.2014 to 19.03.2014. She was initially treated at St.John Hospital which is also makes out from Ex.R1 whereby, she was brought to the hospital on 08.03.2014 with the history of road traffic accident. Hence, the petitioner had substantially 10 MVC.2650/2015 SCCH.13 proved her contention that she sustained injury in road traffic accident. Ex.R2 also makes out that patient crossing the road when she was hit by a two wheeler, sustained injury to the left leg.
15. Now, coming to the fact of rash and negligent driving whereby, it is the contention of the petitioner that the alleged accident is due to rash and negligent riding by the rider of the motor cycle. On the contrary, both the respondents have denied this fact and it is their contention that the accident is due to negligence of the petitioner herself, but as per Ex.P7-Charge sheet, whereby, the police on investigation, have filed charge sheet against the driver of the motor cycle for the offences punishable under Sec.279 and 338 of IPC. Ex.P5 is the IMV report, whereby no damages are found on the motor cycle. Ex.P3 being the Spot Mahazar and Ex.P4 is the spot Sketch. The accident spot is marked as "A" in the Sketch, whereby, the accident spot is shown on the foot path. The road in which, the motor cycle was proceeding is the main road and it is a two way road, the total measurement of the road is 60 ft. in width with road divider and 30 ft. width of one way 11 MVC.2650/2015 SCCH.13 road in which motor cycle had proceeded. So, Ex.P4 speaks for itself which makes out that the petitioner was at the foot path when the accident taken place. It is also the contention of the petitioner in her complaint that she was standing on the foot path. Exactly, the accident spot is marked on the foot path edge portion. So, there is no question of petitioner crossing the road. This itself makes out that on account of rash and negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle who had proceeded towards edge of the tar road and hit against the petitioner who was standing on the foot path. Hence, the petitioner had substantially proved her contention that the alleged accident is due to rash and negligent riding by the rider of the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-04-HK-211. Hence, I hold the above issue in the affirmative.
16. Issue No.2:
The petitioner having proved the Issues No.1 and 2, he is entitled for the compensation from the respondent.12 MVC.2650/2015
SCCH.13
17. As the respondent No.2 being the owner of motor cycle bearing No.KA-04-HK-211which was insured with respondent No.2 as per Ex.R3-Insurance policy, it is the respondent NO.2 who is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner to the quantum arrived as below:
: QUANTUM :
(i) Pain and Sufferings:
The petitioner in the present case having sustained injury. As per the Wound certificate which is marked as Ex.P6, she had sustained tenderness and swelling over right ankle, tenderness over left thigh and multiple abrasions of varying sizes over right and left foot. The respondent No.1 had opted to examine CMO of St.John Hospital and through him Ex.R1 and R2 got marked. As per Ex.R2, she had brought to St.John Hospital on 08.03.2014 with the injury of right ankle and left leg. POP was applied and later as there was increasing pain, she was again brought to the hospital and was admitted in Sparsh Hospital as per Ex.P8- Discharge summary, whereby ORIF with two malleolus screws surgical fixation was done on 18.03.2014. She 13 MVC.2650/2015 SCCH.13 was admitted on 17.03.2014 and discharged on 19.03.2014. She had sustained fracture of medial malleolus, she was a student of 19 years when she had met with an accident. Hence, taking into consideration the nature of injuries sustained and the kind of treatment taken, whereby, the accident having taken place on 08.03.2014 and at the initial stage, POP slab was applied and later on she had undergone surgery.
Ex.P9 is the Certificate issued from the Sparsh Hospital, dt.11.11.2015 , that as on that date, still implants were in the body of the petitioner. Hence, considering this fact, it is reasonable to hold that the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.45,000/- towards pain and sufferings.
(ii) Medical Expenses:
The petitioner for the expenses incurred for the treatment and for purchase of medicines, has produced Ex.P10- a detailed Inpatient bill to the tune of Rs.48,672/- and the payment of said amount is supported in Receipt marked as Ex.P11. Besides, she has also produced medical bills marked as Ex.P11 along with Prescriptions marked as Ex.P12. On going 14 MVC.2650/2015 SCCH.13 through these medical bills, the bills at sl.Nos.4 to 7, 10 to 13 are the tax invoice bills which are already included in the main IP bill. So, the petitioner is not entitled for the claim made under the bills at Sl.Nos.4 to 7, 10 to 13. The bill at Sl.No.3 and the bill at sl.No.8 are one and the same. So, the petitioner is not entitled for the double claim. Further, the Receipt at No.14 is towards food charges and this claim will be considered under the head of food and nourishment. The rest of the bills are towards consultation, X-ray, removal plaster, physiotherapy charges. As the petitioner has undergone surgery and she was hospitalized for 3 days, she would have incurred expenses for the medical treatment, the petitioner is entitled for the said amount except the amount claimed under sl.No. 4 to 8, 10 to 13 of Ex.P11. i.e. Rs.7,437/-. After deduction of this amount, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.54,266/- Hence, I hold that the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.54,300/- by rounding of Rs.54,266/- towards medical expenses.15 MVC.2650/2015
SCCH.13
(iii) Loss of Academic year:-
The petitioner being an Engineering student, she had produced 3rd and 4th semester marks card issued by Visvesvaraiya Technological University, Belagavi, which makes out that she was doing Telecommunication engineering and in the month of January 2015, she had written 3rd semester examination and in July 2015 she had written 4th semester examination. The accident having taken place on 08.03.2014, the very next semester, which she had written 3rd semester conducted in January 2015. It is also her evidence that at the time of accident, she was doing 2nd semester and due to accident, she could not attended the classes for three months. Exs.P13 and P14 makes out that she is a BE student, her subject is Telecommunication. So, taking into consideration this fact, as she is an engineering student and on completion of her engineering course, she will have better expectation to gaining better job opportunities, but on account of non attending of her classes, she had failed in two subjects in the 3rd semester held in January 2015 examination and she had also failed in 16 MVC.2650/2015 SCCH.13 one subject in 4th semester examination held on July 2015. It is also stated by her that on account of injuries, she could not attend her classes for three months. As she had sustained fracture, she had also opted to examine PW2-Doctor who had treated her. As per his evidence, the petitioner had sustained right medial malleolus fracture, she was treated with two malleolus screws with ligament reconstruction on
18.03.2014 and discharged on 19.03.2014. She was Reviewed on 07.12.2016 and she had got 25% total loss of mobility and 7.2% of total loss of stability component resulting in total disability to the lower limbs at 37%. She needs another surgery for removal of implants. So, as the petitioner has disability to the lower limbs at 37% and on account of this injury, she having absent for three months which resulted in poor performance in her semester examination, had hampered her studies and also through there is no complete loss of academic year as 85% of attendance for an engineering student is must for appearing examination and without attending the classes, it is very difficult for an engineering student to write exam. 17 MVC.2650/2015
SCCH.13 So, with this kind of injury as it is to the leg, the petitioner will naturally be not in a position to move about for nearly 2-3 months. So, during that period, she had lost her studies which had resulted in loss of academic year. So, considering this fact, it is reasonable to hold that the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.80,000/- towards loss of academic year.
(iv) Loss of amenities, unhappiness and discomfort etc.:-
As the petitioner was a student at the time of accident, she was just 19 years of age, was studying in 2nd semester BE course and the doctor had assessed the disability and stated that her totally disability to the lower limb is 37% . As she is an engineering student, her chosen subject is Telecommunication engineering, which is not only a desk job she has to deal with all kinds of mode of work, she is supposed to do on completion of her engineering course when she opted job cannot be made out as of now. On the other hand, on account of disability which she is now facing, even she may lose her interest in work. So, this will also lead to unhappiness and also she will be deprived of her 18 MVC.2650/2015 SCCH.13 all amenities which she would have been enjoyed as her co-student would have enjoyed after completion of their engineering degree course. Hence, considering this fact, it is reasonable to hold that the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of future amenities, unhappiness and discomfort etc.
(v) Conveyance, Nourishing food and attending charges :-
Petitioner has undergone treatment as inpatient at Sparsh hospital for three days i.e. from 17.03.2014 to 19.03.14 and she has taken regular follow-up treatment at least for two months.
The petitioner being a student, had stated in her evidence that after discharge from the hospital, she took follow up treatment for a period of six months and she had attended more than 30 times for physiotherapy treatment. She had not obtained OPD card. So, taking into consideration of this fact, as the petitioner had sustained fracture on her medial melleolus as she will not be in a position to move in a private vehicles when plastering applied and as she had undergone surgery, it is natural she has to visit the hospital for follow up 19 MVC.2650/2015 SCCH.13 treatment and physiotherapy is also very much required for speed recovery. So, taking into consideration of this fact that the petitioner had taken treatment as inpatient for a period of three days, it is reasonable to hold that the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- under this head.
(vi) Future medical expenses :
PW.2 doctor has stated that, the petitioner needs another surgery for removal of implants which may costs in their hospital Rs.45,000/- approximately. The petitioner has also produced Estimation of future treatment which is marked as Ex.P9, but it does not reveals the details of the treatment costs. PW2 has stated that the petitioner has under gone surgery with two malleolus screws with ligament reconstruction and Ex.P8 and Ex.P9-Discharge summary and Certificate of Orthopedic surgeon of Sparsh Hospital also makes out this fact. X-ray Ex.P16 produced reveals implants in situ. Counsel appearing for the respondents have not denied or disputed the fact that the petitioner requires another surgery for removal of implants. Since the petitioner is advised for further one more surgery for 20 MVC.2650/2015 SCCH.13 removal of implant, I find it is just and necessary to award Rs.30,000/- as compensation under the head future medical expenses. It is made clear that the above amount will not carry any future interest.
Hence, the following calculation:-
1. Pain & sufferings: Rs. 45,000/-
2. Medical Expenses: 54,300/-
3. Loss of academic year: 80,000/-
4. Loss of amenities, unhappiness 40,000/-
and discomfort etc:
5. Conveyance, Nourishment, Food 10,000/-
and attending charges:
6. Future medical expenses 30,000/-
Total Rs.2,59,300/-
Hence, this tribunal feels that it is just and proper to award the compensation of Rs.2,59,300/-
which is the just and fair compensation.
18. The counsel on behalf of the respondent No.1 had relied on decisions reported in ILR 2009 Kar 3562 (DB) in Veerappa and another -vs- Siddappa and another and ILR 2009 Kar. 2921 in Bajaj Allianz Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd. -vs- B.C.Kumar and another. Though the above referred decisions makes out that pleading guilty by the accused will not lead to admission and it 21 MVC.2650/2015 SCCH.13 cannot be accepted as gospel truth. But, here in the present case, this Tribunal having discussed in length on Issue No.1 by taking into consideration the evidence of RWs.1 and 2, as well as the evidence of the petitioner, it had elaborately discussed and held that the alleged accident is due to rash and negligent riding by the rider of the Motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-04- HK-211. Hence, the above referred decision are not applicable to the case on hand.
19. As per Sec.171 of the Motor Vehicle's Act, where any Claims Tribunal allows a claim for compensation, it can direct that in addition to the amount of compensation, simple interest shall be paid at such rate and from such date nor earlier than the date of making the claim. As per ruling reported in ILR 2000 Karnataka 1098, the case of Puttanna and another -vs- Lakshmana and others, it is held that unless there are special circumstances, interest that has to be awarded on the compensation amount is 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. 22 MVC.2650/2015
SCCH.13 Therefore, I hold that the petitioner is entitled for interest at the rate of 6% p.a.
20. As stated supra, respondent No.1 & 2 being the insurer and owner of the offending Motor cycle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. In view of subsistence of insurance policy, respondent No.1-insurance company shall deposit compensation amount in the court with interest at 6% p.a. Hence, I answer Issue No.2 accordingly.
21. Issue No.3:- In view of my findings on issue Nos.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner under Sec.166 of M.V. Act is hereby allowed in part with costs against the respondents No.1 and 2 as follows:
In view of the valid contract of Insurance between respondents No.1 and 2, the respondent No.1/Insurance company is liable to pay the compensation amount of Rs.2,59,300/- to the petitioner with interest at the rate of Rs.6% P.A., from the date of the 23 MVC.2650/2015 SCCH.13 petition till the date of deposit in court. (Rs.30,000/- awarded towards future medical expenses will not carry future interest.) The Respondent No.1 shall deposit the entire compensation amount within two months from today.
On deposit of the entire compensation amount, 60% of the amount be deposited as FD in the ratio of 50: 50 for a period of 3 years and 5 years respectively in the name of the petitioner in any of the nationalized bank or scheduled bank of her choice with liberty to draw the accrued interest on the said FD once in three months and the remaining amount shall be paid to the petitioner through the cheque under proper identification.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1000/-. Draw up award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcription revised typed by her on computer, corrected, signed & pronounced by me in open court on 13th Day of April 2017.) (PANCHAKSHARI M.) II Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXVIII ACMM, Bengaluru.24 MVC.2650/2015
SCCH.13 ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for petitioner :
PW.1 : Miss Ranjitha PW.2 : Dr. Nagaraj B.N.
List of documents marked for petitioner :
Ex.P.1 : FIR Ex.P.2 : 2 Complaints Ex.P.3 : Mahazar Ex.P.4 : Sketch Ex.P.5 : IMV report Ex.P.6 : Wound certificate Ex.P.7 : Charge sheet Ex.P.8 : Discharge summary Ex.P.9 : Estimate of future treatment Ex.P.10 : Inpatient Bill Ex.P.11 : 22 Medical bills together marked Ex.P.12 : 7 Prescriptions together marked Ex.P.13 & : Notarised copy of two marks cards 14 (Original perused and returned) Ex.P.15 : Case sheet Ex.P.16 : X-ray with report
List of witnesses & documents for respondents :
RW1 : Dr.G.Babu Rao
RW2 : Smt. S.D.Nagarathna
Ex.R1 : True copy of police intimation
Ex.R2 : True copy of MLC Extract
Ex.R3 : Insurance policy.
(PANCHAKSHARI M.)
II Addl.Small Causes Judge &
XXVIII ACMM, Bengaluru.
**
25 MVC.2650/2015
SCCH.13
AWARD
SCCH.NO:13
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA: BANGALORE CITY M.V.C.No.2650 of 2015 .
PETITIONER: Miss.Ranjitha, 18 years D/o Manjunath Prasad, No.29/17, Krishnappa Building, 4th Cross, Pipelane, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru.
(By Sri.G.V.Vasudeva Murthy, Adv.) vs. RESPONDENTS: 1. United India Ins.Co.Ltd., 6th floor, Krishi Bhavan, Near Hudson Circle, Nrupathunga Road, Bengaluru-560 001.
Policy No.0705813112P303087437 Dated 15.03.2013 to 14.03.2014.
2.Sri.Shrivathsa B., 177, 7th Cross, 4th Main, Sriram Nagar, M.L.Puram, Bengaluru-560 086.
(RC owner of vehicle bearing No. KA-04-HK-0211) (By Sri.V.R.Muralidhar, Adv. for R1 Smt.T.Sumangala and Ranjith Prakash, Advs. for R.2) 26 MVC.2650/2015 SCCH.13 WHEREAS, this petition filed on __________by the petitioner/s above named U/sec.110-A/166 of the M.V.C. Act praying for the compensation of Rs._________ (Rupees _________________________________for the injuries sustained by the petitioner/Death of ___________in a Motor Accident by Vehicle No.___________.
WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before Smt.Panchakshari M, II Addl. Judge, Member, Bengaluru, in the presence of Sri/Smt.________________ Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt.________________ Advocate for respondent The claim petition is decreed as under :-
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner under Sec.166 of M.V. Act is hereby allowed in part with costs against the respondents No.1 and 2 as follows:
In view of the valid contract of Insurance between respondents No.1 and 2, the respondent No.1/Insurance company is liable to pay the compensation amount of 27 MVC.2650/2015 SCCH.13 Rs.2,59,300/- to the petitioner with interest at the rate of Rs.6% P.A., from the date of the petition till the date of deposit in court. (Rs.30,000/- awarded towards future medical expenses will not carry future interest.) The Respondent No.1 shall deposit the entire compensation amount within two months from today.
On deposit of the entire compensation amount, 60% of the amount be deposited as FD in the ratio of 50: 50 for a period of 3 years and 5 years respectively in the name of the petitioner in any of the nationalized bank or scheduled bank of her choice with liberty to draw the accrued interest on the said FD once in three months and the remaining amount shall be paid to the petitioner through the cheque under proper identification.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1000/-. Given under my hand and seal of the Court this_the .......... day of ................2017.) MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: BENGALURU.
28 MVC.2650/2015 SCCH.13 COST OF PETITION By the Petitioner/s Respondent No.1 No.2 Court fee paid on Petition 10-00 Court fee paid on Powers Court fee paid on I.A. Process Pleaders Fee Total Rs. Decree Drafted Scrutinized by Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR MEMBER, M.A.C.T, METROPOLITAN AREA, BENGALURU. 29 MVC.2650/2015 SCCH.13 ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioner under Sec.166 of M.V. Act is hereby allowed in part with costs against the respondents No.1 and 2 as follows:
In view of the valid contract of Insurance between respondents No.1 and 2, the respondent No.1/Insurance company is liable to pay the compensation amount of Rs.2,59,300/- to the petitioner with interest at the rate of Rs.6% P.A., from the date of the petition till the date of deposit in court. (Rs.30,000/- awarded towards future medical expenses will not carry future interest.) The Respondent No.1 shall deposit the entire compensation amount within two months from today.30 MVC.2650/2015
SCCH.13 On deposit of the entire compensation amount, 60% of the amount be deposited as FD in the ratio of 50: 50 for a period of 3 years and 5 years respectively in the name of the petitioner in any of the nationalized bank or scheduled bank of her choice with liberty to draw the accrued interest on the said FD once in three months and the remaining amount shall be paid to the petitioner through the cheque under proper identification.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1000/-. Draw up award accordingly.
(PANCHAKSHARI M.) II Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXVIII ACMM, Bengaluru.31 MVC.2650/2015
SCCH.13 BEFORE THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU.
(SCCH.13) DATE: THE 13th DAY OF JANUARY 2016.
M.V.C.No.2650 of 2015
PETITIONER: Kum.Ranjitha
Vs.
RESPONDENTS: United India Ins.Co.Ltd. and
another.
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that she had sustained grievous injuries in road traffic accident that alleged to have been occurred on 08.03.2014 at about 01.50 p.m. near Sarjapura junction, Hosur Main Road, Madivala, Bengaluru, was due to rash & negligent riding of the Motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-04-HK-211 by its rider as alleged in the petition?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation? If so, to what extends and from whom?
3. What order or award?
(B.PUSHPANJALI) II Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXVIII ACMM, Bengaluru.