Bangalore District Court
In Mvc No.6855/2013 1. Sri.Ravisutha vs In Both The Cases. 1. The Manager on 11 August, 2015
BEFORE THE COURT OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.
SCCH-14
PRESENT: Basavaraj Chengti., B.Com.,LL.B.,(spl)
Member, MACT,
XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes,
BANGALORE.
MVC No.6855/13 and 315/2014
Dated this the 11th day of August 2015.
Petitioner in MVC No.6855/2013 1. Sri.Ravisutha,
S/o Late Gangappa
Aged about 48 years,
2. Smt.Doddakka,
W/o Ravisutha,
Aged about 30 years,
All are residing at
Present Residing at No.747,
New Mecidi Road,
Kempaiah Building,
T-Dasarahalli,
Bangalore-560057.
(By pleader Sri CKS)
Petitioner in MVC No.315/2014 1. Master.Kiran Kumar,
S/o Revisutha,
Aged about 12 years,
2. Sri.Ravisutha,
S/o Late Gangappa,
Aged about 48 years,
(Since the petitioner No.1 is a minor,
represented in the present petition
through his guardian father Viz., the
petitioner No.2)
SCCH-14 2 MVC No.6855/13 & 315/14
All are residing at;
Present Residing at No.747,
New Macidi Road,
Kempaiah building,
T-Dasarahalli,
Bangalore-560057.
Permanent Address,
Sulikunte Village,
Kadlapanahalli post,
Sasalu Hobli,
Doddaballapura Taluk,
Bangalore Rural Dist.
(By pleader Sri S)
V/s.
Respondents in both the cases. 1. The Manager
ICICI Lombard House Gen.Insu.
Sudha Commercial Complex,
Shop No.3 and 4, 4th Block,
Dr.Rajkumar Road,
Rajajinagar,
Bangalore-560010.
Policy issuing office;
The manager,ICICI Lombard House
Gen.Insurance,
No.414, Veer Savarkar Marg,
Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple,
Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025.
2.Sri.Syed Nizam Abbas,
S/o Sujath Ali,
Aged about Major,
R/at No.209, 2nd floor,
No.A4, Yumuna Block
National Games village,
Koramangala,
Bangalore-560047
(R1-By pleader Sri.ANH
R2-Exparte)
SCCH-14 3 MVC No.6855/13 & 315/14
COMMON JUDGMENT
These two petitions are filed U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act
by the claimants for compensation. Since, both the petitions are
arising out of same accident, they are clubbed together for
common trial and disposal by common Judgment.
2. Brief averments of the claim petitions are as under:
On 03.07.2013 at about 11.30 A.M., the petitioner No.1 in
MVC No.6855/13 was talking to the petitioner No.2 therein by
sitting on TVS XL moped bearing No.KA-06-S-8880 along with his
sons by name Sachin kumar and Kiran kumar near Chinahalli
village. At that time, the lorry bearing No.KA-17-A-3699 driven by
its driver in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human
life, came from Kolala side without blowing any horn suddenly
turned the lorry towards extreme left side from right side and hit
the petitioner's TVS moped. Due to impact, the petitioner No.1 in
both the petitions and said Sachin Kumar have sustained grievous
injuries. Immediately, they were taken to Govt Hospital, Tumkur
for first aid treatment, but Sachin kumar succumbed to the
injuries. The petitioner Kiran kumar was treated at District
Hospital Tumkur. The dead body was given to the petitioners in
MVC No.6855/2013 after post mortem and the petitioners have
spent Rs.50,000/- for transportation, funeral and other
miscellaneous expenses. The deceased was studying in 3rd
standard at Sulakunte village. He was hale and healthy prior to
accident. He was a brilliant student. Due to his death the future of
SCCH-14 4 MVC No.6855/13 & 315/14
the petitioners has become dark. They suffered mental shock. They
lost love and affection, dependency and loss of income.
The petitioner No.1 sustained fracture of left femur with hip
dislocation with left acetabulum fracture. He took treatment as an
inpatient at District Hospital, Tumkur from 03.07.2013 to
06.07.2013. He was shifted to M.C.Orthopaedic, Arthroscopy and
Joint Replacement Center, Tumkur for better treatment and he
was an inpatient there from 06.07.2013 to 10.07.2013 and
underwent surgery and thereafter, he was shifted to Sanja Gandhi
Hospital, Bangalore wherein he was an inpatient from 11.07.2013
to 27.07.2013. The petitioner spent Rs.5,50,000/- towards
conveyance, medicines and nourishment. The petitioner was
studying in 8th standard at Primary School at Sulakunte Village.
He was hale and healthy prior to accident. He was brilliant student
and he lost his academic year which affected his future life. Due to
accidental injuries, the petitioner has become permanently
disabled.
The accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving
of the driver of lorry bearing No.KA-17-A-3699. Koratagere police
have registered a case against the driver of the lorry bearing
No.KA-17-A-3699 in Cr.No.190/2013 for the offences punishable
U/Sec.279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of IPC. The respondents being the
insurer and owner of the lorry bearing No.KA-17-A-3699, are
jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
Therefore, the petitioners have claimed compensation of
SCCH-14 5 MVC No.6855/13 & 315/14
Rs.20,00,000/- and Rs.30,00,000/- respectively with cost and
interest.
3. In pursuance of the notice, the respondent no.1 has
appeared before the court through his counsel and filed objection
statement in both the cases. In spite of service of notice the
respondent No.2 remained absent and hence, he is placed exparte.
The respondent No.1 has not admitted the issuance of policy in
favour of the respondent No.2 in respect of lorry bearing No.KA-17-
A-3699. He has denied the averments of the petitions as false and
contended that the respondent No.2 has not complied the
mandatory provisions of law, that the driver of said vehicle was not
holding a valid driving license and the vehicle was not having valid
permit and FC on the date of accident, that the accident was not
due to the negligence of the driver of lorry bearing No.KA-17-A-
3699 and the accident was due to sole negligence of the deceased
and injured petitioner, that they tried to cross the road where there
was no zebra crossing, that the compensation claimed by the
petitioners is excessive and exaggerated. He has denied the status
of the petitioners in MVC No.6855/2013 and has denied the age of
the deceased and injured at the time of accident. Hence, he has
sought for dismissal of the petitions as against him.
4. On the basis of above pleading, the following issues
were framed:
SCCH-14 6 MVC No.6855/13 & 315/14
ISSUES
IN MVC NO.6855/2013
1. Whether the petitioners prove that
sachin Kumar S/o Ravisutha died due
to the injuries sustained by him in the
accident occurred on 03.07.2013 at
about 11.30 am, near Puradahalli
Village, Kolala-chinnahalli Road,
Koratagere Taluk, Tumkur District,
Arising due to rash and negligent
driving of driver of Lorry bearing
No.KA-17-A-3699?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled
for compensation? If so, how much
and from whom?
3. What Order or Award?
IN MVC NO.315/2014
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he
sustained grievous injuries in the
nature of permanent disablement in
the accident occurred on 03.07.2013
at about 11.30 am, near Puradahalli
Village, Kolala-chinnahalli Road,
Koratagere Taluk, Tumkur District,
arising due to rash and negligent
driving of driver of Lorry bearing
No.KA-17-A-3699?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled
for compensation? If so, how much
and from whom?
3. What Order or Award?
5. During the evidence, MVC No.315/2014 is transferred
to this Court from SCCH-8. At the instance of the petitioners, these
two petitions are clubbed together for common evidence and
disposal by common Judgment. During the evidence, the
petitioners have examined the petitioner No.1 in MVC
SCCH-14 7 MVC No.6855/13 & 315/14
No.6855/2013 as PW.1 and 3 and examined two witnesses as
PW.2 and 4. They have got marked documents as Ex.P1
to Ex.P44. The respondent no.1 has examined two witnesses as
RW-1 and 2 and got marked documents as Ex.R1 to 4.
6. Heard the arguments. The counsel for the petitioners
has relied upon the following rulings;
1. 2004 ACJ 2094 (NICL Vs Challa Bharathamma)
2. Civil Appeal No.7137/2013
(Kishan Gopal & ano Vs Lala & Ors)
I have gone through the said ruling and perused the
records.
7. My findings on the above issues are as under:
In MVC No.6855/2013
Issue No.1 : In Affirmative
Issue No.2 : In Affirmative. Rs.3,70,000/-
from the respondent no.2.
Issue No.3 : As per final order:
In MVC No.315/2014
Issue No.1 : In Affirmative
Issue No.2 : In Affirmative. Rs.4,42,000/-
from the respondent no.2.
Issue No.3 : As per final order:
REASONS
8. ISSUE NO.1 BOTH THE CASES: These issues are
interlinked and hence taken them together for common discussion.
In the former case, the petitioners are the parents of the deceased
SCCH-14 8 MVC No.6855/13 & 315/14
and in latter case, the petitioner No.1 is the injured. The
respondents are the insurer and owner of Lorry bearing No.KA-17-
A-3699. Among them, the respondent No.2 remained exparte and
the respondent No.1 has contested the matter. He has disputed the
issuance of policy in respect of said lorry, but during trial, he has
impliedly and expressly admitted the issuance of policy and has
got marked copy of policy as Ex.R4 which goes to show that the
policy was in force on the date of accident. The petitioner No.1 in
MVC No.6855/2013 is the father of the deceased and the injured.
He has examined himself as PW-1 and 3. He has examined an
eyewitness and a doctor as PW-2 and 4 respectively. He has got
marked copies of police records as Ex.P1 to 7, 14, 16 to 25, 27, 28.
Since, the cases are clubbed after commencement of trial, similar
police documents are marked twice under different number.
Educational records of the deceased and the petitioners are at
Ex.P11 to 13, 31 to 33. Medical records pertaining to the injured
are at Ex.P26, 34 to 37, 39 to 44. The respondent No.1 has
examined Deputy Commissioner of Transport and Senior RTO,
Indiranagar and legal manager of his company as RW-1 and 2.
Copies of permit records are at Ex.R1 to 3. The oral and
documentary evidence of the respondent No.1 is not helpful to
decide this issue and to prove his defence that the accident was
due to sole or contributory negligence of the deceased and injured.
9. PW-1 and PW-3 Ravisutha has reiterated the averments of
the petitions and stated that the accident was due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of Lorry bearing No.KA-17-A-3699 in
SCCH-14 9 MVC No.6855/13 & 315/14
which Sachinkumar died due to injuries sustained by him in the
accident and Kiran kumar sustained grievous injuries. Evidence of
PW-2 Rangnatha and of PW-4 Dr.Prakashappa corroborates the
evidence of PW-1 and 3 as to manner of accident and as to nature
of injuries caused to Kiran Kumar and as to death of
Sachinkumar. Except bare denials nothing is elicited from PW-1
to 4 to disbelieve their evidence.
10. PM report discloses that Sachinkumar died due to
injuries sustained by him and wound certificate reveals that Kiran
kumar sustained simple and grievous injuries. Other police
records go to show that the deceased and the injured sustained
injuries in a road traffic accident. There is no delay in admitting
the injured to the hospital and in reporting the matter to police.
Moped of PW-1 and Lorry of the respondent No.2 were detained
from the place of accident and were found damaged. IMV report
reveals that brake system of both the vehicles was in order. IMV
authority has opined that the accident was not due to any
mechanical defects of the vehicles. FIR, statement and chargesheet
disclose that moped was stationary when the accident has
occurred. The sketch reveals that the accident has occurred on the
mud path situated towards western side of the road. The sketch
and panchanama falsify the defence of the respondent No.1. The
final report of the police goes against the said defence. It reveals
that the accident was due to sole negligence of the driver of the
Lorry bearing No.KA-17-A-3699. There is no explanation by the
respondent No.1 as to the reason for the lorry to go off the road.
SCCH-14 10 MVC No.6855/13 & 315/14
The driver of the lorry is the best witness to speak about the same.
Non examination of the said driver is fatal to the defence of the
respondent No.1. The place of accident clearly indicates that the
lorry was driven in rash and negligent manner. There is nothing on
record to disbelieve the chargesheet filed by the police. Therefore, it
can be held that the accident was due to sole negligence of the
driver of the lorry bearing No.No.KA-17-A-3699 in which the sons
of PW-1 Ravisutha sustained grievous injuries and among them,
Sachinkumar succumbed to the injuries. Evidence of PW-1 to 4 is
corroborated by the contents of police and medical records which
collectively substantiate the averments of the petitions as to
manner of accident and its result. Hence, answer the issues in
affirmative.
11. Issue No.2 in MVC No.6855/2013: The petitioners are
claiming to be the parents of the deceased. The respondent No.1
has denied the status of the petitioners. PW-1 Ravisutha has
deposed about relationship between the petitioners and the
deceased. Nothing is elicited from him to discard his evidence.
Genealogy issued by village Accountant, copy of ration card,
Adhaar card and school records support the version of PW-1 and
reveal that the petitioners are the parents of the deceased. They
are the LRs of the deceased and are entitled for compensation.
12. The school certificates disclose that the deceased was
born on 02.06.2005 and was studying in 3rd standard at the time
of accident. So, the deceased was aged 8 years at that time.
Nothing is on record to disbelieve the same. Hon'ble Supreme court
SCCH-14 11 MVC No.6855/13 & 315/14
has held in Civil Appeal No.4497/2015 (Munnalal Jain and anr
Vs Vipin Kumar sharma and ors) that age of the deceased shall
be considered to ascertain the multiplier. The deceased was aged 8
years. Therefore, as per Schedule II of M.V.Act, appropriate
multiplier is 15.
13. The deceased was aged less than 10 years. Hence,
second ruling of the petitioner is not applicable. However, on the
basis of principle laid down in the said ruling, it can be held that
contribution of children below 10 years can be taken as
Rs.20,000/-pa., Hence, loss of contribution would be
Rs.20,000X15=Rs.3,00,000/-. The petitioners have lost their son.
They have spent amount for transportation of dead body and
funeral express. Hence, they are entitled for just and reasonable
compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of love and affection and
Rs.20,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses. Thus,
the petitioners are entitled for just and reasonable compensation of
Rs.3,70,000/- with interest @9% pa, from the date of petition till
the date of payment. Liability aspect is discussed separately.
Hence, I answer the issue as above.
14. Issue No.2 in MVC No.315/2014: PW-3 Ravisutha is
the father of the petitioner and he has deposed as per the
averments of the petition. PW-4 Dr.Prakashappa is the treated
doctor and he has deposed that the petitioner sustained following
injuries;
SCCH-14 12 MVC No.6855/13 & 315/14
1.Fracture of left femur
2. Dislocation of hip on left side.
3. Fracture of acetabulum on left side.
He has further stated that the petitioner is suffering from
permanent disability to the extent of 20% to whole body due to the
injuries caused to his left lower limb. Except bare denials, nothing
is elicited from PW-3 and 4 to disbelieve their evidence as to
injuries and effect of such injuries to the petitioner. However, the
assessment of disability of PW-4 is on higher side. He ought not
have given extra points for pain which is mild. I am of the opinion
that 3% added to the mobility and stability component may be
disallowed.
15. Copy of wound certificate, discharge summary, medical
bills, prescriptions, conveyance bills, OP records and X-ray at
Ex.P26, 34 to 37, 39 to 44 corroborate the evidence of PW-3 and 4.
There is nothing on record to believe that the medical bills are
created for this case. Total amount of medical bills comes to
Rs.45,221/-. However, the conveyance bills are exorbitant and are
liable to be rejected, but the petitioner is entitled for reasonable
sum towards conveyance charges. The petitioner was treated as
inpatient in Govt Hospital, Tumkur, M.C.Orthopaedic, Arthroscopy
and Joint Replacement Center, Tumkur and Sanjay Gandhi
Hospital, Bangalore during the period from 03.07.2013 to
27.07.2013. He was on follow up treatment after discharge and
period of such treatment may be 6 to 8 weeks. The petitioner was
born on 03.09.2003 as per Ex.P32 and 33. It means, he was
SCCH-14 13 MVC No.6855/13 & 315/14
aged 9 years on the date of accident. There is nothing on record to
say that the petitioner was aged 12 years and was in 8th standard.
He was admitted to 1st standard on 29.05.2009. So, he was in 5th
standard as on the date of accident. He was an inpatient for about
25 days. He was on follow up thereafter. Total period of treatment
and bed rest will be 3 months. During said period, the petitioner
would have spent amount for nourishment, conveyance and
attendant charges. His guardian ought to have lost income for at
least one month. PW-3 is a former. There is no evidence as to his
income. Hence, notional income of Rs.6,000/- shall be considered
as income of PW-3. The petitioner has faced a set back in his
studies. He ought to have taken tuition to cope with studies for
which he might have spent amount.
16. PW-4 Dr.Prakashappa has stated that the petitioner is
suffering from permanent disability to the extent of 21% to whole
body. It is opined above that extra points added by the doctor is
not correct. If 3% is deducted from 21%, the extent of disability of
the petitioner comes to 18%. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in
ruling reported in ILR-2013 KAR-4891 (Master Mallikarjun v/s
Divisional Manager, The National Insurance Co., Ltd and
another) as under;
(a) The main elements of damage in the
case of child victims are the pain,
shock, frustration, deprivation of
ordinary pleasures and enjoyment
associated with healthy and mobile
limbs. The compensation awarded
should enable the child to acquire
something or to develop a lifestyle
which will offset to some extent the
SCCH-14 14 MVC No.6855/13 & 315/14
inconvenience or discomfort arising
out of the disability. Appropriate
compensation for disability should
take care of all the non-pecuniary
damages. In other words, apart form
this head, there shall only be the
claim for the actual expenditure for
treatment, attendant, transportation
etc.,
(b) Though it is difficult to have an
accurate assessment of compensation
in the case of children suffering
disability on account of a motor
vehicle accident, having regard to the
relevant factors, precedents and the
approach of various High Courts, that
the appropriate compensation on all
other heads in addition to the actual
expenditure for treatment attendant,
etc., should be, if the disability is
above 10% and up 30% it would be
Rs.3 lakhs; upto 60% Rs.4 lakhs; upto
90%, Rs.5 lakhs and above 90%, it
should be 6 lakhs,. Fore permanent
disability upto 10%, it should be Rs. 1
lakh, unless there are exceptional
circumstances to take different
yardstick. In the instant case, the
disability is to the tune of 18%.
Appellant had a longer period of
hospitalization for about two months
causing also inconvenience and loss of
earning to the parents.
The said principle is applicable to this case. The petitioner
suffered permanent disability due to accidental injuries. He is
facing several difficulties which may persist in future. He needs to
undergo one more surgery for removal of implants. There is
nothing on record to disbelieve the evidence of PW-4 as to cost of
SCCH-14 15 MVC No.6855/13 & 315/14
future surgery. Hence, I award just and reasonable compensation
as under;
1 Pain and sufferings Rs. 40,000/-
2 Medical bills Rs. 46,000/-
3 Nourishment, conveyance Rs. 10,000/-
and attendant charges
4 Disability Rs.3,00,000/-
5 Loss of amenities Rs. 25,000/-
6 Loss of income of PW-3 Rs. 6,000/-
7 Tuition fee Rs. 5,000/-
8 Future medical expenses Rs. 10,000/-
Total Rs.4,42,000/-
The petitioner is entitled for a compensation of
Rs.4,42,000/- with interest @9% p.a., from the date of petition till
the date of payment. Liability aspect is discussed separately.
Hence, I answer the issue as above.
LIABILITY
17. The respondents are the insurer and owner of lorry
bearing No.No.KA-17-A-3699. The accident has occurred due to
rash and negligent driving of the driver of said lorry. Hence, both
the respondents may be made liable to compensate the petitioners,
but the respondent No.1 has contended that the respondent No.2
has violated the terms of policy and hence, he is not liable to
compensate the petitioners. He has examined RW-1 and 2 and got
marked Ex.R1 to 4 to prove his defence. There is no rebuttal
evidence by the petitioners as to violation of terms and conditions
of the policy.
SCCH-14 16 MVC No.6855/13 & 315/14
18. Ex.R4 is copy of policy and it reveals that the policy was
issued in favour of the respondent No.2 in respect of lorry bearing
NO.No.KA-17-A-3699 on 22.06.2013 and it was in force on the
date of accident. Evidence of RW-1 and 2 reveals that there was no
valid permit to the lorry at the time of accident, but permit was
issued to it w.e.f. 04.07.2013. Contents of Ex.R1 to 3 corroborate
the evidence of RW-1 and 2. The petitioners have contended that
the owner of lorry applied for permit on 01.07.2013 and paid fees
on 03.07.2013 and hence, the policy was in force at the time of
accident, but their contention is contrary to the contents of Ex.R1
which clearly reveals that the permit was valid from 04.07.2013.
Mere filing of application and payment of fees prior to 04.07.2013
do not prepone the effect of permit. The respondent No.2 remained
exparte. There is no evidence to rebut the contents of Ex.R1 to 4.
Hence, I disbelieve the arguments of the counsel for the
petitioners. Evidence of RW-1 is believable which is substantiated
by the contents of Ex.R1 to 3. The permit was granted to the lorry
w.e.f. 04.07.2013. The accident has occurred on 03.07.2013 at
11.30 am, Application for permit was filed before RTO on
03.07.2013 and fee was paid at 02.28 pm i.e., subsequent to the
accident. Permit is valid from 04.07.2013. Hence, I have no
hesitation to hold that the lorry bearing No.KA-17-A-3699 was not
having a valid permit as on the date of accident.
19. The liability of the respondent No.1 is governed by the
contract between him and the respondent No.2. Copy of policy
reads as under;
SCCH-14 17 MVC No.6855/13 & 315/14
Limitation as to use:
The policy covers use only
under a permit within the
meaning of the Motor Vehicle Act,
1988 or such a carriage falling
under sub section (3) of Section
66 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988.
The lorry was not having valid permit as on the date of
accident. The respondent No.2 ought to have not plied the lorry
without permit as per specific condition mentioned above. Thus,
the respondent No.2 has violated the specific condition and plied
his vehicle without valid permit. Hence, the respondent No.1 is
absolved from indemnifying the respondent No.2. The principle laid
down in 1st ruling of the petitioners is not applicable to this case.
Pay and recovery order can not be passed by this Court. Hence, the
respondent No.2 alone is liable to pay compensation and interest
to the petitioners as stated above. The petitions as against the
respondent No.1 are liable to be dismissed without cost. Hence, I
answer the issues as to liability as above.
20. ISSUE NO.3 IN BOTH THE CASES : The respondent
No.1 has disputed the jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioners
have produced copy of lease deed which is marked as Ex.P38. The
contents of said lease deed are not challenged. Moreover, the
respondent No.2 is residing in Bangalore. Hence, this Court has
got jurisdiction to try the petitions and to grant relief to the parties.
In view of above discussion and findings, I proceed to pass
the following:
SCCH-14 18 MVC No.6855/13 & 315/14
ORDER
The petitions filed U/sec.166 of M.V Act by the petitioners in MVC No.6855/2013 and MVC No.315/2014 are hereby partly allowed with cost.
The petitioners in MVC No.6855/2013 is entitled for compensation of Rs.3,70,000/-. The petitioner No.1 in MVC No.315/2014 is entitled for compensation of Rs.4,42,000/-. The petitioners are also entitled for interest @ 9% p.a., on the compensation amount from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondent No.2 is liable to pay compensation of Rs.3,70,000/- and Rs.4,42,000/- with interest to the said petitioners respectively and he is directed to deposit the compensation amount with interest before the Court within one month from the date of Award.
The petitioners in MVC No.6855/2013 are entitled to share the amount as under;
The petitioner No.1 Rs.1,70,000/- The petitioner No.2 Rs.2,00,000/-
After deposit, Rs.50,000/- out of compensation amount awarded to each of the petitioners in MVC No.6855/2013 shall be deposited in any nationalized or scheduled bank in their SCCH-14 19 MVC No.6855/13 & 315/14 respective names for period of 3 years. Remaining amount and interest shall be released in their favour through account payee cheque with proper identification.
Out of compensation awarded to the petitioner No.1 in MVC No.315/2014, Rs.4,00,000/- shall be deposited in the name of the minor petitioner No.1 in any nationalized or scheduled bank under the guardianship of his father till he attains majority. Balance amount with interest shall be paid to the minor guardian of the petitioner No.1 through account payee cheque with proper identification.
The petitions as against the respondent No.1 are dismissed without cost.
The original Judgment shall be kept in MVC.No.6855/2013 and copy of the same in MVC.No.315/2014.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/- each. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer and corrected by me and pronounced in the open court, on this the 11th day of August 2015.) (Basavaraj Chengti) XVI ADDL.JUDGE , Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bangalore.
SCCH-14 20 MVC No.6855/13 & 315/14 SCCH-14 21 MVC No.6855/13 & 315/14ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS:
PW.1 Ravisutha PW.2 Ragnatha PW.3 Ravisutha PW.4 Dr.Prakashappa Respondents : RW.1 Mallikarjuna RW.2 Chidananda Ex.P1 - Copy of charge sheet Ex.P2 - Copy of panchanama Ex.P3 - Copy of PM report Ex.P4 - Copy of sketch Ex.P5 - Copies of statement of witnesses Ex.P6 - Copy of IMV report Ex.P7 - Copy of photographs Ex.P8 - Genealogy Ex.P9 - Copy of Ration Card Ex.P10 - Copy of Adhaar Card of my wife Ex.P11 - School Certificate of my son Ex.P12 - School Certificate of my son Ex.P13 - Progress Report Ex.P14 - FIR with compliant Ex.P15 - Adhaar Card Ex.P16 - Statement Ex.P17 - FIR Ex.P18 - spot panchanama Ex.P19 - Sketch Ex.P20-25 - Statement of witnesses Ex.P26 - wound certificate Ex.P27 - Motor Vehicles Act report Ex.P28 - Charge sheet Ex.P29 - Ration card Ex.P30 - Adhaar card SCCH-14 22 MVC No.6855/13 & 315/14 Ex.P31 - Health card Ex.P32-33 - Admission extract Ex.P34 - Permission certificate Ex.P35 -receipt of Dist health committee Ex.P36 - Attendant card Ex.P37 -Prescriptions Ex.P38 - Rental agreement
Ex.P39-40 - Discharge summary Ex.P41 - Taxi bills (6 in nos) Ex.P42 - Medical bills (4 in nos).
Ex.P43 - Case Sheet
E.xP44 - X-ray
Ex.R1 - copy of good carriage permit,
Ex.R2 - copy of fee Challan
Ex.R3 - copy of permit application
Ex.R4 - Copy of policy
XVI ADDL.JUDGE ,
Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bangalore.
SCCH-14 23 MVC No.6855/13 & 315/14Dt.11.08.2015 P-CKS R1-ANH R2-Exparte For Judgment Order pronounced in open court vide separate judgment.
ORDER The petitions filed U/sec.166 of M.V Act by the petitioners in MVC No.6855/2013 and MVC No.315/2014 are hereby partly allowed with cost.
The petitioners in MVC No.6855/2013 is entitled for compensation of Rs.3,70,000/-. The petitioner No.1 in MVC No.315/2014 is entitled for compensation of Rs.4,42,000/-. The petitioners are also entitled for interest @ 9% p.a., on the compensation amount from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondent No.2 is liable to pay compensation of Rs.3,70,000/- and Rs.4,42,000/- with interest to the said petitioners respectively and he is directed to deposit the compensation amount with interest before the Court within one month from the date of Award.
The petitioners in MVC No.6855/2013 are entitled to share the amount as under;
The petitioner No.1 Rs.1,70,000/- The petitioner No.2 Rs.2,00,000/-
SCCH-14 24 MVC No.6855/13 & 315/14After deposit, Rs.50,000/- out of compensation amount awarded to each of the petitioners in MVC No.6855/2013 shall be deposited in any nationalized or scheduled bank in their respective names for period of 3 years. Remaining amount and interest shall be released in their favour through account payee cheque with proper identification.
Out of compensation awarded to the petitioner No.1 in MVC No.315/2014, Rs.4,00,000/- shall be deposited in the name of the minor petitioner No.1 in any nationalized or scheduled bank under the guardianship of his father till he attains majority. Balance amount with interest shall be paid to the minor guardian of the petitioner No.1 through account payee cheque with proper identification.
The petitions as against the respondent No.1 are dismissed without cost.
The original Judgment shall be kept in MVC.No.6855/2013 and copy of the same in MVC.No.315/2014.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/- each. Draw award accordingly.
XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Cause & MACT., Bangalore.
SCCH-14 25 MVC No.6855/13 & 315/14AWARD SCCH NO.14 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA : BANGALORE CITY MVC No.6855/13 and 315/2014 Petitioner in MVC No.6855/2013 1. Sri.Ravisutha, S/o Late Gangappa Aged about 48 years,
2. Smt.Doddakka, W/o Ravisutha, Aged about 30 years, All are residing at Present Residing at No.747, New Medical Road, Kempaiah Building, T-Dasarahalli, Bangalore-560057.
(By pleader Sri CKS) Petitioner in MVC No.315/2014 1. Master.Kiran Kumar, S/o Revisutha, Aged about 12 years,
2. Sri.Ravisutha, S/o Late Gangappa, Aged about 48 years, (Since the petitioner No.1 is a minor, represented in the present petition through his guardian father Viz., the petitioner No.2) All are residing at;
Present Residing at No.747, New Macidi Road, Kempaiah building, T-Dasarahalli, Bangalore-560057.
SCCH-14 26 MVC No.6855/13 & 315/14Permanent Address, Sulikunte Village, Kadlapanahalli post, Sasalu Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk, Bangalore Rural Dist.
(By pleader Sri S) V/s.
Respondents in both the cases. 1. The Manager ICICI Lombard House Gen.Insu. Sudha Commercial Complex, Shop No.3 and 4, 4th Block, Dr.Rajkumar Road, Rajajinagar, Bangalore-560010.
Policy issuing office;
The manager,ICICI Lombard House Gen.Insurance, No.414, Veer Savarkar Marg, Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025.
2.Sri.Syed Nizam Abbas, S/o Sujath Ali, Aged about Major, R/at No.209, 2nd floor, No.A4, Yumuna Block National Games village, Koramangala, Bangalore-560047 (D1-By pleader Sri.ANH D2-Exparte) WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the petitioner/s above named U/sec.166 of the M.V.C. Act, praying for the compensation of Rs.
(Rupees )
SCCH-14 27 MVC No.6855/13 & 315/14
for the injuries sustained by the petitioner/Death of in
a motor Accident by vehicle No. WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before Sri/Smt.Basavaraj Chengti, XVI Addl.Judge, Member, Court of Small Cause, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. Advocate for respondent.
ORDER The petitions filed U/sec.166 of M.V Act by the petitioners in MVC No.6855/2013 and MVC No.315/2014 are hereby partly allowed with cost.
The petitioners in MVC No.6855/2013 is entitled for compensation of Rs.3,70,000/-. The petitioner No.1 in MVC No.315/2014 is entitled for compensation of Rs.4,42,000/-. The petitioners are also entitled for interest @ 9% p.a., on the compensation amount from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondent No.2 is liable to pay compensation of Rs.3,70,000/- and Rs.4,42,000/- with interest to the said petitioners respectively and he is directed to deposit the compensation amount with interest before the Court within one month from the date of Award.
SCCH-14 28 MVC No.6855/13 & 315/14The petitioners in MVC No.6855/2013 are entitled to share the amount as under;
The petitioner No.1 Rs.1,70,000/- The petitioner No.2 Rs.2,00,000/-
After deposit, Rs.50,000/- out of compensation amount awarded to each of the petitioners in MVC No.6855/2013 shall be deposited in any nationalized or scheduled bank in their respective names for period of 3 years. Remaining amount and interest shall be released in their favour through account payee cheque with proper identification.
Out of compensation awarded to the petitioner No.1 in MVC No.315/2014, Rs.4,00,000/- shall be deposited in the name of the minor petitioner No.1 in any nationalized or scheduled bank under the guardianship of his father till he attains majority. Balance amount with interest shall be paid to the minor guardian of the petitioner No.1 through account payee cheque with proper identification.
The petitions as against the respondent No.1 are dismissed without cost.
The original Judgment shall be kept in MVC.No.6855/2013 and copy of the same in MVC.No.315/2014.
SCCH-14 29 MVC No.6855/13 & 315/14Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/- each. Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day of 2015 MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: Bangalore.
By the __________________________________ Petitioner/s Respondent No.1 No.2 __________________________________ Court fee paid on petition 10-00 Court fee paid on Powers 01-00 Court fee paid on I.A. Process Pleaders Fee _____________________________ Total Rs. ____________________________ Decree Drafted Scrutinised by MEMBER, M.A.C.T. METROPOLITAN: BANGALORE Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR SCCH-14 30 MVC No.6855/13 & 315/14
(c) The main elements of damage in the case of child victims are the pain, shock, frustration, deprivation of ordinary pleasures and enjoyment associated with healthy and mobile limbs. The compensation awarded should enable the child to acquire something or to develop a lifestyle which will offset to some extent the inconvenience or discomfort arising out of the disability. Appropriate compensation for disability should take care of all the non-pecuniary damages. In other words, apart form this head, there shall only be the claim for the SCCH-14 31 MVC No.6855/13 & 315/14 actual expenditure for treatment, attendant, transportation etc.,
(d) Though it is difficult to have an accurate assessment of compensation in the case of children suffering disability on account of a motor vehicle accident, having regard to the relevant factors, precedents and the approach of various High Courts, that the appropriate compensation on all other heads in addition to the actual expenditure for treatment attendant, etc., should be, if the disability is above 10% and up 30% to the would body, Rs.3 lakhs; upto 60% Rs.4 lakhs; upto 90%, Rs.5 lakhs and above 90%, it should be 6 lakhs,. Fore permanent disability upto 10%, it should be Rs. 1 lakh, unless there are exceptional circumstances to take different yardstick. In the instant case, the disability is to the tune of 18%. Appellant had a longer period of hospitalization for about two months causing also inconvenience and loss of earning to the parents.