Bangalore District Court
Indramma vs The New India Assurance Co on 24 June, 2017
1 MVC No.1826 of 2016
BEFORE THE COURT OF XXI ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES
JUDGE AND THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
(SCCH-23) AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24th JUNE 2017
PRESENT: Sri.N.N.YALAVATTI, B.Com, LL.B, (Spl).,
XXI ADDL. SCJ & XIX ACMM
MEMBER - MACT
BANGALORE
M.V.C No.1826 of 2016
PETITIONER: Indramma
W/o Chandrashekar,
Aged about 70 years,
Residing at No.205, 2nd cross,
Datatreya layout,
Bangalore city-19.
(By Sri.Venkata Reddy C.M., Advocate)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS: 1. The New India Assurance co., Ltd.,
Nazarbad branch, No.73,
1st floor, Madhvesh complex,
Malai Mahadeshwara road,
Nazarbad, Karnataka-570010,
Mysore
Policy No.6050031136200000769
(By Sri.M.B.R.-Advocate)
2. Renu Kumar M
S/o Late.H.A.N.Maniyappa,
Residing at No.109/A,
Belagola Hulikere (V) Sringapatna (T),
2 MVC No.1826 of 2016
Mandya district.
(By Sri.N.G.)
****
JUDGMENT
This petition is filed by petitioners under Sec.166 of M.V. Act against the respondents claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/.
2. That on 18-11-2015 at about 11.00 a.m. on K.G. nagar main road, opposite to Naveen stores, the rider of the motor cycle bearing No.KA-11-EA-6606 belonging to respondent No.2 insured with respondent No.1, rode it rash and negligently and dashed against the petitioner who was walking on her left side of the road, as a result of which, petitioner fell down and sustained injuries as shown in her wound certificate. Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to Vishwa Bharathi hospital and took treatment and again admitted in the same hospital for surgery. The police have registered the case against the rider of the motor cycle and filed charge sheet. The petitioner has filed this claim petition alleging that prior to the accident, she was working as a house wife and other works and she was earning Rs.10,000/-p.m. Due the injury sustained in the accident, 3 MVC No.1826 of 2016 she become disabled and unable to do her work as working prior to the accident and requested to pass the award as prayed.
3. Inspite of serving the notice, the respondent No.1 and 2 have appeared through their counsel and resisted the case of the petitioner by filing objection. The respondent No.1 has contended that the petitioner has filed this claim petition on imaginary ground and the compensation amount claimed by him is excessive, exorbitant and arbitrary. The respondent No.1 and 2 have seriously disputes occurrence of the alleged accident. This accident was occurred on a negligence of the petitioner. The offending motor cycle is not at all involved in this accident. The respondent No.2 being the owner of the motor cycle disputes its liability by contending that his vehicle was insured with respondent No.1 and policy was in force. Therefore if any liability arose, the respondent No.1 is liable to pay compensation amount. The respondent No.1 being the insurer of the vehicle seriously disputes its liability by contending that this accident was occurred on the negligence of the petitioner. The respondent No.2 has violated Section 134 (c) and 158 (6) of IMV Act. The rider of the motor cycle did not possess valid driving licence. The respondent No.1 has denied manner of the accident, income, age, period of treatment and medical expenses and requested to dismiss the claim petition.
4 MVC No.1826 of 2016
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, this court has framed the following:
Issues
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, he had sustained injuries in RTA on 18-11-2015 at about 11.00 a.m., on K.G.nagar main road, opposite to Naveen stores due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motor cycle bearing No.KA-11-EA-6606 belonging to the 2nd respondent insured with 1st respondent?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as claimed? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. What order or award?
6. In order to prove the case of the petitioner, the petitioner got herself examined as PW-1 and PW-2 is examined on her behalf and Ex.P-1 to Ex.P17 are got marked.
In order to prove the defence of 1st respondent, RW-1 to 4 are examined and Ex-R1 to 6 are got marked.
7. I have heard lengthy arguments.
5 MVC No.1826 of 2016
8. After assessing the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing the arguments, my findings to the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 In the affirmative Issue No.2 Partly in the affirmative, entitled for a total compensation of Rs.1,37,651/- from the respondent No.1 and 2 along with interest at 6%p.a. Issue No.3 As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
9. Issue No.1: I have carefully scrutinized oral evidence of PW-1 along with documents pertaining to the criminal case registered against the rider of the offending motor cycle. PW-1 in her evidence, she has categorically spoken that the rider of the motor cycle rode it rash and negligently and dashed against her when she was walking on the left side of the road. The evidence of PW-1 is corroborating with documentary evidence pertaining to the criminal case registered against the rider of the motor cycle. I have gone through the mahazar and statement of the injured. It speaks that this accident was occurred when she was walking on the left side of the road. The rider of the motor 6 MVC No.1826 of 2016 cycle had enough scope to avoid this accident by taking his vehicle on his right side. But he has not done so. The copy of the mahazar speaks that there was an enough space to the rider of the motor cycle towards his right side, he could not have avoided this accident by taking his vehicle towards his right side. The evidence of PW-1 and available documents are sufficient to say that, this accident was occurred purely on a rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motor cycle, There may be some minor discrepancies in relating to the date of accident, but available records speaks that this accident was occurred on 18-11-2015 itself . With these observation, I answered Issue No.1 Accordingly.
10. Issue No.2: I have carefully scrutinized oral evidence of Pw-1 along with wound certificate marked at Ex-P5 and four discharge summaries marked at Ex-P7 and 11 and 12 and clinical lab reports filed at Ex-P10 and 15. Ex-P5 speaks that the petitioner has sustained following injuries :-
Lacerated wound over parietal region of scalp Tenderness over right cup Out of these injuries, one is fracture. Here we shall turn our attention on the evidence of RW-3 and 4. RW-3 is the treated doctor. As per his evidence, the petitioner was inpatient from 20-11-2015 to 25- 7 MVC No.1826 of 2016 11-2015. He himself has treated the petitioner in the above period. She underwent surgery in the above period for fracture injuries. It goes to shows that the petitioner underwent surgery for uniting of fracture injury in the above period only. Once again, I have carefully scrutinized evidence of RW-3 and 4 who have given a treatment to petitioner. The evidence of RW-3 and 4 speaks that the only RW-3 gave treatment to the injuries sustained in the above accident when petitioner was hospitalized from 20-11-2015 to 25-11-2015.
11. The advocate for the respondent No.1 insurance company has filed his written argument by contending that the insurance company has examined RW-1 to 4 and many documents are got marked to prove that the petitioner has taken treatment not only to the injuries sustained in the accident, but also, she has taken treatment for her oldage disease like diabetic, pneumonia, asthma, fever etc., I have gone through the para 4 and 5 of their written statement. They have categorically pleaded about treatment taken by the petitioner. I have meticulously gone through the para 4 and 5 of their written statement. I have once against carefully scrutinized evidence of doctor who have treated the petitioner for the injuries sustained in the accident as well as for the injuries of her old age disease. The evidence of PW-3 is 8 MVC No.1826 of 2016 sufficient to say that he only treated to petitioner for the injuries sustained in the accident. The evidence of PW-4 speaks that she has given treatment to petitioner for the injuries not sustained in the accident. Therefore I find much force in the argument canvassed by advocate for the insurance company.
12. The evidence of PW-3 and 4 speaks that the petitioner was hospitalized on various dates after discharging from the hospital. As per their evidence, the petitioner took treatment to the injuries sustained in the accident when she was admitted in the said hospital from 20-11- 2015 to 25-11-2015. The available records and evidence of RW-3 and 4 speaks that the petitioner got admitted to hospital thrice after discharging from the hospital, but she was hospitalized thrice not for the treatment to the injuries sustained in the accident, but for the treatment of her old age disease like fever, pneumonia, diabetic. The advocate for the respondent has rightly pointed out by relying on evidence of RW-2 to 4 and submits that the petitioner was 75 years old on the date of accident and she was suffering from the old age disease, she took treatment for her old age disease and claiming the medical bill as a compensation. But she is not entitle. I have found much merits in the argument canvassed by advocate for the insurance company. It is true 9 MVC No.1826 of 2016 that the evidence of RW-3, 4 are sufficient to say that she took treatment to the injuries sustained in the accident, when she was hospitalized for the first time. Later on she was hospitalized thrice for the treatment for not injuries sustained in the accident, but for her diabetic, pneumonia, gastric. Therefore she is not entitle amount spent towards treatment for diabetic, pneumonia and fever including asthma. Considering the wound certificate and evidence of RW-3, it is just and proper to award Rs.35,000/- under the head of pain and sufferings..
13. PW-2 is the MRO, he has produced IT card of the petitioner. Once again, I have gone through the discharge summary marked at Ex- P7 and 11, 12 along with Ex-P19. Lab report marked at Ex-P10 and 9 clinical lab report marked at Ex-P15. These two discharge summaries including evidence of RW-2, 3, 4 are sufficient to say that on the date of accident, she took first aid, then, she was hospitalized from 20-11-2015 to 25-11-2015 and she underwent surgeries for the injuries sustained in the above accident. Therefore she is entitle to claim the compensation amount under the head of medical expenses only from the above said period. The evidence of RW-2 and 3 are sufficient to say that the petitioner was hospitalized thrice for the treatment of the problems of pneumonia, asthma, diabetic and fever. So it is crystal clear from the 10 MVC No.1826 of 2016 above evidence that the petitioner has spent huge amount for the treatment of her disease like asthma, pneumonia, diabetic and fever. Even though the petitioner has filed 60 medical bills of Rs.1,76,228/- at Ex-P8 + 49 medical bills of Rs.47,074/- at Ex-P13 = Rs.2,23,302/-. But she is only entitle to claim Rs.52,651/-only. Because, the petitioner has spent Rs.1,70,651/- towards treatment for fever, gastric, diabetic, pneumonia, hypertension, fever and loose tools on various dates. It has been clearly mentioned in Ex-P11 and 12. The evidence of RW-3, 4 are very much corroborating with each Ex-P7, 11 and 12. Therefore she is not entitle Rs.1,70, 651/- spent towards medical treatment for fever and other old age disease of the petitioner. Therefore, I am going to award Rs.52,651/- only under the head of medical expenses.
14. In addition to this, I am going to award Rs.25,000/- under the head of loss of happiness, frustration, inconvenience and discomfort and Rs.25,000/- towards conveyance, nourishment, nutritious food.
15. The petitioner do not produced any medical evidence to show that, she is suffering from physical permanent disability and sustained loss of her future earnings. Therefore she is not entitle compensation under the head of loss of her future earnings.
11 MVC No.1826 of 2016
16. In all I award Rs.1,37,651/- under the following heads:
1 Pain and sufferings Rs. 35,000/-
2 Medical expenses Rs. 52,651/-
3 Loss of happiness, Rs. 25,000/-
frustration, inconvenience and discomfort 4 Conveyance, Rs, 25,000/-
nourishment and
nutritious food
Total Rs. 1,37,651/-
17. The respondent No.1 is the insurer of the offending vehicle and insurance policy was in force. As per the copy of the charge sheet, the driver of the offending vehicle had valid and effective driving licence. Therefore the respondent No.1 being the insurer of the offending vehicle is liable to pay compensation amount. Therefore respondent No.1 has to deposit the compensation amount. With these observation, I answered issue No.2 accordingly.
18. Issue No.3:- In view of the discussion made supra, I proceed to pass the following :
-: ORDER :-12 MVC No.1826 of 2016
The claim petition U/Sec., 166 of Motor Vehicles Act filed by the petitioner is hereby allowed in part with cost.
The petitioner is awarded total compensation of Rs. 1,37,651/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the deposit of the amount in the tribunal.
Respondent Nos.1 & 2 are jointly and severally to pay compensation to the petitioner.
The 1st respondent insurance company shall deposit the compensation amount in the tribunal within the 90 days from the date of this order.
The petitioner is at liberty to withdraw the entire compensation amount with interest.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1000/-. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcript thereof is corrected and then pronounced by me th in the Open Court on this the 24 day of June 2017) (N.N.YALAVATTI) XXI ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, BANGALORE.13 MVC No.1826 of 2016
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER PW-1: Indramma PW-2: Harish LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER Ex.P-1: FIR Ex.P-2: Complaint Ex.P-3: Charge sheet Ex.P-4: Mahazar Ex.P-5: Wound certificate Ex.P-6: IMV report Ex.P-7: Two discharge summaries Ex.P-8: 60 medical bills (Rs.1,76,228/-) Ex.P-9: 43 prescriptions Ex.P-10: 19 clinical lab reports Ex.P-11: Discharge summary Ex.P-12: Discharge summary Ex.P-13: 49 medical bills (Rs.47,074/-) Ex.P-14: 20 prescriptions Ex.P-15: 9 clinical lab reports Ex.P-16: Authorization letter Ex.P-17: Inpatient record LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS RW-1: Harish RW-2: B.R.Ravi Shankar RW-3: Dr.Ramesh B 14 MVC No.1826 of 2016 RW-4: Lakshmi deepa LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:
Ex-R1 MLC register
Ex.R2 Police intimation
Ex.R3 Document pertaining to first aid treatment
Ex.R4 Authorization letter
Ex.R5 Policy
Ex.R6 Notice
(N.N.YALAVATTI)
XXI ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE,
BANGALORE.