In M.V.C.No.1071/2016 Herself Has Been ... vs No.2 on 24 May, 2017

[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Bangalore District Court

In M.V.C.No.1071/2016 Herself Has Been ... vs No.2 on 24 May, 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL. SMALL CAUSES AND ADDL.
MACT., BANGALORE, (SCCH-7)

Dated this, the 24th day of May, 2017.

PRESENT : SMT.INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR,
B.Com.,LL.B.(Spl.),LL.M.,
IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM,
Court of Small Causes,
Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.

M.V.C.No.1070/2016
C/w. M.V.C.No.1071/2016

Gopi. Y.S., ..... PETITIONER IN
S/o. Late Shankarappa, M.V.C.No.1070/2016
Aged about 39 years,
R/at No.286, 1st 'B' Cross,
5th 'A' Main,
Bagalakunte,
Bangalore - 73.

Permanent resident of;

Opposite to Post Office,
Yagati Village @ Post,
Kadur Taluk,
Chickmangaluru District.

(By Sri. B.S. Manjuanth, Adv.,)

V/s

1. Ravi. Y.M., ..... RESPONDENTS IN
S/o. Manjunath. Y.T., M.V.C.No.1070/2016
R/at No.469, III 'C' Main,
II Phase, Manjunatha Nagar,
Bangalore - 10.
SCCH-7 2 M.V.C.No.1070/2016
C/W M.V.C.No.1071/2016

(R.C. Owner of Car/Motor Cab bearing
Registration No.KA-02-AE-4113)

2. SBI General Insurance
Company Ltd.,
Ground and First Floor,
Rukmini Towers,
3-1 Plat Form Road,
Sheshadripuram,
Bangalore - 20.

(I.P. No.0000000003669046,
Valid from 20.12.2015 to 19.12.2016)

(R-1 Exparte)
(R-2 By Sri. Ravi. S. Samprathi, Adv.,)

Roopa. T.R., ..... PETITIONER IN
S/o. Gopi. Y.S., M.V.C.No.1071/2016
Aged about 32 years,
R/at No.286, 1st 'B' Cross,
5th 'A' Main,
Bagalakunte,
Bangalore - 73.

Permanent resident of;

Opposite to Post Office,
Yagati Village @ Post,
Kadur Taluk,
Chickmangaluru District.

(By Sri. B.S. Manjunath, Adv.,)

V/s

1. Ravi. Y.M., ..... RESPONDENTS IN
SCCH-7 3 M.V.C.No.1070/2016
C/W M.V.C.No.1071/2016

S/o. Manjunath. Y.T., M.V.C.No.1071/2016
R/at No.469, III 'C' Main,
II Phase, Manjunatha Nagar,
Bangalore - 10.

(R.C. Owner of Car/Motor Cab bearing
Registration No.KA-02-AE-4113)

2. SBI General Insurance
Company Ltd.,
Ground and First Floor,
Rukmini Towers,
3-1 Plat Form Road,
Sheshadripuram,
Bangalore - 20.

(I.P. No.0000000003669046,
Valid from 20.12.2015 to 19.12.2016)

(R-1 Exparte)
(R-2 By Sri. Ravi. S. Samprathi, Adv.,)

COMMON JUDGMENT

As per the Order dated 20.08.2016 passed on Memo in
M.V.C.No.1070/2016, M.V.C.No.1071/2016 is clubbed with the
said M.V.C.No.1070/2016 and the common evidence is recorded
in the said case. Hence, M.V.C.No.1070/2016 and
M.V.C.No.1071/2016 are pending for consideration and disposal
before this Tribunal by passing a common Judgment.

2. The Petitioner in M.V.C.No.1070/2016 has filed the
said petition as against the Respondents No.1 and 2 under Section
SCCH-7 4 M.V.C.No.1070/2016
C/W M.V.C.No.1071/2016

166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, praying to award
compensation of Rupees 10,00,000/- with interest and costs.

3. The brief averments of the Petitioner's case in
M.V.C.No.1070/2016 are as follows;

a) On 14.01.2016 at about 7-30 p.m., he was occupant in
a Car bearing Registration No.KA-02-AE-4113 along with wife
Roopa and were proceeding from Bangalore to Yagati, Kadur Taluk
on N.H.206, i.e., on Tiptur Arasikere Road, while proceeding so
near Lakshmidevarahalli Gate, the driver of the said Car driven
the same with high speed, reckless, rash and negligent manner,
endangering to human life, without observing traffic rules and
regulations, while overtaking another vehicle had lost the control
over the Car and hit against the another Car bearing Registration
No.KA-41-B-3467 from opposite direction and caused the
accident. Due to the terrific impact, all the inmates of both the
Cars have sustained severe injuries and he had sustained
Fracture of left humerus.

b) Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to the
Government Hospital, Hassan, wherein, first-aid treatment was
given and then, shifted to KCG Hospital, wherein, X-rays were
taken and the said fracture was confirmed and treated
conservatively, then, he had taken treatment at Sindhi Hospital
and on 28.01.2016 admitted at Bowring Hospital and the said
fracture was treated conservatively with POP application and
discharged on 30.01.2016 with the advise for regular follow-up
SCCH-7 5 M.V.C.No.1070/2016
C/W M.V.C.No.1071/2016

treatment and bed rest, accordingly, he is undergoing follow-up
treatment and also taking bed rest.

c) Due to the injuries sustained in the said accident, he
had incurred huge amount towards medical expenses,
conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges.

d) Prior to the date of accident, he was hale and healthy
and he was aged about 39 years and was working as Driver-cum-
Conductor at B.M.T.C., 3rd Depot, Shanthi Nagar, Bangalore and
drawing a salary a sum of Rupees 24,000/- per month.

e) Due to the injuries sustained in the said accident and
due to cause of permanent disability, he is unable to attend his
duty and not getting his income. Due to the injuries sustained in
the said accident, he is undergoing deep mental shock, pain and
sufferings, untold hardship, he is getting pain over left arm, he
cannot lift or carry weights, hold his arm above shoulder level and
cannot do any work or his profession and the injuries sustained
are caused permanent disability.

f) The Arasikere Rural Police, who were informed about
the said accident, have registered a criminal case as against the
driver of the Car/Motor Cab bearing Registration No.KA-02-AE-
4113 in Crime No.23/2016 punishable under Sections 279 and
338 of IPC. The cause of the accident was due to rash and
negligent driving of the said Car by its driver.
SCCH-7 6 M.V.C.No.1070/2016
C/W M.V.C.No.1071/2016

g) The Respondent No.1 is the R.C. Owner of the
Car/Motor Cab bearing Registration No.KA-02-AE-4113. The
Respondent No.2 is the Insurer of the said Car. Hence, the
Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the
compensation.

h) He claims compensation under the heads towards
medical expenses, conveyance, nourishment and attendant
charges, for cause of permanent disability, for mental shock, pain
and sufferings, for loss of amenities and enjoyment in life, for loss
of earnings, future loss of earnings on account of permanent
disability, etc., Hence, this petition.

4. Though the notice was duly served on the Respondent
No.1, he was remained absent and hence, he is placed as exparte
on 23.03.2016.

5. Initially, though the notice was duly served on the
Respondent No.2, it was remained absent and hence, it was
placed as exparte on 23.03.2016. Later, the Respondent No.2 has
appeared before this Tribunal through its Learned Counsel and as
per the Order dated 13.04.2016 passed on I.A.No.I, the exparte
order is set-aside and the Respondent No.2 is taken on file. But,
initially, inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the Respondent
No.2 had not filed the written statement. Later, as per the Order
dated 19.10.2016 passed on I.A.No.II, the written statement filed
by the Respondent No.2 is taken on file.
SCCH-7 7 M.V.C.No.1070/2016
C/W M.V.C.No.1071/2016

6. The Respondent No.2 inter-alia denying the entire case
of the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.1070/2016, has further contended
as follows;

a) The petition is not maintainable either in law or on
facts.

b) It seeks protection under Section 147 and 149 of MV
Act, 1988.

c) As per Section 134(c) of M.V. Act, 1988, it is
mandatory duty of the Insured/Respondent No.1 to furnish the
particulars of policy, date, time and place of the accident,
particulars of the injured and the name of the driver and
particulars of driving licence. But, the Insured/Respondent No.1
has not complied with statutory demand. Hence, it is not liable to
pay any compensation and the case is liable to be dismissed as
against it for non-compliance of the statutory demand.

d) As per Section 158(6) of M.V. Act, 1988, it is
mandatory duty of the concerned Police Station to forward all the
relevant documents to the concerned Insurer within 30 days from
the date of the information, but, the Arasikere Rural Police Station
have failed to forward the documents and not complied with the
statutory demand.

e) The driver of the Car was not holding a valid and
effective driving licence at the time of accident. The Respondent
No.1 has handed over the possession of the vehicle to the said
SCCH-7 8 M.V.C.No.1070/2016
C/W M.V.C.No.1071/2016

driver and therefore, has contravened the proviso of M.V. Act and
the rules framed there under and have committed the breach of
the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, under the contract
of Insurance, it is not obligated to indemnify the
Insured/Respondent No.1.

f) The Car is registered as a commercial passenger
carrying vehicle and insured with it as commercial passenger
carrying vehicle. A driver, who was holding permission and
authorization from the Licensing Authority to drive transport
vehicle can drive such vehicle. The driver, who was driving insured
Car in question, was not holding such authorization from the
Licensing Authority. The driver was only holding license to drive
LMV (NT) and as such, the driver is non-license to drive insured
Car. The Respondent No.1 has handed over the possession of the
vehicle to the said driver and therefore, has contravened the
proviso of M.V. Act and the rules framed there under and have
committed the breach of the terms and conditions of the policy.
Hence, under the contract of Insurance, it is not obligated to
indemnify the Insured/Respondent No.1.

g) The insured Car in question did not held valid permit
and route permit as on the date of accident. The Respondent No.1
by using the Car without valid permit has violated and
contravened the proviso of M.V. Act and the rules framed there
under and have committed the breach of the terms and conditions
of the policy. Hence, under the contract of Insurance, the
SCCH-7 9 M.V.C.No.1070/2016
C/W M.V.C.No.1071/2016

Respondent No.1 is not obligated to indemnify the
Insured/Respondent No.1.

h) It has issued a policy of Insurance in favour of the
Respondent No.1 in respect of Car bearing Registration No.KA-02-
AC-4113, the liability of its Company if any is limited to the terms
and conditions of the policy and subject to valid and effective
driving licence of the driver in question.

i) As per Condition No.1 of the policy, the
Insured/Respondent No.1 has to intimate the accident
immediately on its occurrence to Insurer and produce the required
documents and to co-operate with the Insurer in defending the
claim effectively. In this case, the Insurer has not reported the
accident nor submitted the required documents and not co-
operating with the Insurer and violated the Condition No.1 of the
Policy, which is a condition precedent to liability. As such, the
Policy has become null and void and the contract of Insurance
entered between the Insurer and Insured cannot be enforceable,
hence, the petition as against it to be dismissed.

j) On the date of the accident, the Car was being driven
in a reasonable speed and careful manner and there was no
rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of Car.

k) The Petitioner has not sustained injuries that are
mentioned in the petition and the Petitioner has exaggerated the
SCCH-7 10 M.V.C.No.1070/2016
C/W M.V.C.No.1071/2016

injuries to get more compensation and as such, it cannot be
believed.

l) It reserves its right to file additional objection
statement in the changed circumstances of law and facts of the
case.

m) It seeks permission of this Hon'ble Court to contest the
matter on all the grounds available to the Insured under Section
170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, if the Owner/Insured fails to
contest the claim in collusion with the Petitioners.

n) The amount of compensation claimed Rupees
10,00,000/- is highly excessive, exaggerated, arbitrary and
speculative, when compared to comparable cases, which have
been disposed off.

o) The Petitioner may be directed to confirm that, no
other petition if filed before this MACT or before any other MACT,
on the same cause of action. The Petitioner may be directed to give
an undertaking to this Hon'ble Court that, no such petition is filed
on the same cause of action, excepting this petition.

p) If this Hon'ble Court were to award compensation, the
rate of interest may be restricted to the one allowed by the Banks
on deposits as per the Guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India and
interest not payable over the amount paid to the Petitioner in
respect of future expenditures, interest is to be paid only over the
amount, which has become payable on the date of award, as per
SCCH-7 11 M.V.C.No.1070/2016
C/W M.V.C.No.1071/2016

law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in A.I.R. 1995
SC 755 (R.D. Hattangadi V/s. Pest Control (India) Ltd.,). Hence,
prayed to dismiss the claim petition with costs.

7. The Petitioner in M.V.C.No.1071/2016 has filed the
said petition as against the Respondents No.1 and 2 under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, praying to award
compensation of Rupees 15,00,000/- with interest and costs.

8. The brief averments of the Petitioner's case in
M.V.C.No.1071/2016 are as follows;

a) On 14.01.2016 at about 7-30 p.m., she was occupant
in a Car bearing Registration No.KA-02-AE-4113 along with her
husband Gopi. Y.S., children and all were proceeding from
Bangalore to Yagati, Kadur Taluk on N.H.206, i.e., on Tiptur
Arasikere Road, while proceeding so near Lakshmidevarahalli
Gate, the driver of the said Car driven the same with high speed,
reckless, rash and negligent manner, endangering to human life,
without observing traffic rules and regulations, while overtaking
another vehicle, had lost the control over the Car and hit against
another Car bearing Registration No.KA-41-B-3467 from opposite
direction and caused the accident.

b) Due to the terrific impact, all the inmates of both the
Cars have sustained severe injuries and she had sustained
Fracture of shaft of left humerus mid 1/3rd with radial N palsy left.
SCCH-7 12 M.V.C.No.1070/2016
C/W M.V.C.No.1071/2016

c) Immediately after the accident, she was shifted to the
Government Hospital, Hassan, wherein, wherein, X-rays were
taken, said fracture was confirmed, Doctors have advised surgery
for left humerus fracture and she got discharged from the Hospital
on 19.01.2016 and shifted to Bangalore and admitted at KCG
Hospital, wherein, underwent surgery and internal fixation for left
humerus fracture, other injuries treated conservatively and
discharged on 29.01.2016 with the advise for regular follow-up
treatment and bed rest and accordingly, she is undergoing follow-
up treatment and also taking bed rest.

d) Due to the injuries sustained in the said accident, she
had incurred huge amount towards medical expenses,
conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges.

e) Prior to the date of accident, she was hale and healthy
and he was aged about 32 years and was working as a Tailor and
earning a sum of Rupees 12,000/- per month.

f) Due to the injuries sustained in the said accident and
due to cause of permanent disability, she is unable to do her
profession and not getting her income. Due to the injuries
sustained in the said accident, she is undergoing deep mental
shock, pain and sufferings, untold hardship, she is getting pain
over left arm, she cannot lift or carry weights, hold her arm above
shoulder lever and she cannot do any house hold works and also
her tailoring profession, the injuries sustained are caused
permanent disability.
SCCH-7 13 M.V.C.No.1070/2016
C/W M.V.C.No.1071/2016

g) The Arasikere Rural Police, who were informed about
the said accident, have registered a criminal case as against the
driver of the Car/Motor Cab bearing Registration No.KA-02-AE-
4113 in Crime No.23/2016 punishable under Sections 279 and
338 of IPC. The cause of the accident was due to rash and
negligent driving of the said Car by its driver.

h) The Respondent No.1 is the R.C. Owner of the
Car/Motor Cab bearing Registration No.KA-02-AE-4113. The
Respondent No.2 is the Insurer of the said Car. Hence, the
Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the
compensation.

i) She claims compensation under the heads of towards
medical expenses, conveyance, nourishment and attendant
charges, for cause of permanent disability, for mental shock, pain
and sufferings, for loss of amenities and enjoyment in life, for loss
of earnings, future loss of earnings on account of permanent
disability, etc., Hence, this petition.

9. Though the notice was duly served on the Respondent
No.1, he was remained absent and hence, he is placed as exparte
on 23.03.2016.

10. Initially, though the notice was duly served on the
Respondent No.2, it was remained absent and hence, it was
placed as exparte on 23.03.2016. Later, the Respondent No.2 has
appeared before this Tribunal through its Learned Counsel and as
SCCH-7 14 M.V.C.No.1070/2016
C/W M.V.C.No.1071/2016

per the Order dated 13.04.2016 passed on I.A.No.I, the exparte
order is set-aside and the Respondent No.2 is taken on file. But,
initially, inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the Respondent
No.2 had not filed the written statement. Later, as per the Order
dated 19.10.2016 passed on I.A.No.II, the written statement filed
by the Respondent No.2 is taken on file.

11. The Respondent No.2 inter-alia denying the entire case
of the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.1071/2016, has further contended
as follows;

a) The petition is not maintainable either in law or on
facts.

b) It seeks protection under Section 147 and 149 of MV
Act, 1988.

d) As per Section 158(6) of M.V. Act, 1988, it is
mandatory duty of the concerned Police Station to forward all the
relevant documents to the concerned Insurer within 30 days from
SCCH-7 15 M.V.C.No.1070/2016
C/W M.V.C.No.1071/2016

the date of the information, but, the Arasikere Rural Police Station
have failed to forward the documents and not complied with the
statutory demand.

e) The driver of the Car was not holding a valid and
effective driving licence at the time of accident. The Respondent
No.1 has handed over the possession of the vehicle to the said
driver and therefore, has contravened the proviso of M.V. Act and
the rules framed there under and have committed the breach of
the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, under the contract
of Insurance, it is not obligated to indemnify the
Insured/Respondent No.1.

j) On the date of the accident, the Car was being driven
in a reasonable speed and careful manner and there was no
rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of Car.

k) The Petitioner has not sustained injuries that are
mentioned in the petition and the Petitioner has exaggerated the
injuries to get more compensation and as such, it cannot be
believed.

l) It reserves its right to file additional objection
statement in the changed circumstances of law and facts of the
case.

n) The amount of compensation claimed Rupees
15,00,000/- is highly excessive, exaggerated, arbitrary and
speculative, when compared to comparable cases, which have
been disposed off.

p) If this Hon'ble Court were to award compensation, the
rate of interest may be restricted to the one allowed by the Banks
on deposits as per the Guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India and
interest not payable over the amount paid to the Petitioner in
respect of future expenditures, interest is to be paid only over the
amount, which has become payable on the date of award, as per
law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in A.I.R. 1995
SC 755 (R.D. Hattangadi V/s. Pest Control (India) Ltd.,). Hence,
prayed to dismiss the claim petition with costs.

12. Based on the above said pleadings, I have framed the
following Issues in both the cases;

ISSUES

In M.V.C.No.1070/2016

1. Whether the Petitioner proves that,
the accident occurred due to rash
and negligent driving of the Car
bearing Reg.No.KA-02-AC-4113 by
its driver and in the said accident,
he sustained injuries?

2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled
for compensation? If so, how much
and from whom?

3. What Order?

In M.V.C.No.1071/2014

1. Whether the Petitioner proves that,
the accident occurred due to rash
SCCH-7 19 M.V.C.No.1070/2016
C/W M.V.C.No.1071/2016

and negligent driving of the Car
bearing Reg.No.KA-02-AC-4113 by
its driver and in the said accident,
she sustained injuries?

2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, how much and
from whom?

3. What Order?

13. In order to prove their case, the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.1071/2016 himself has been examined as P.W.1 and
has also examined one witness as P.W.4 by filing the affidavits as
their examination-in-chief and has placed reliance upon Ex.P.1 to
Ex.P.12, Ex.P.20 to Ex.P.24 and Ex.P.27 to Ex.P.29 and the
Petitioner in M.V.C.No.1071/2016 herself has been examined as
P.W.2 and has also examined two witnesses as P.W.3 and P.W.4
by filing the affidavits as their examination-in-chief and has
placed reliance upon Ex.P.13 to Ex.P.19, Ex.P.25, Ex.P.26,
Ex.P.30 and Ex.P.31. On the other hand, the Respondent No.2 has
not adduced any evidence on its behalf.

14. Heard the arguments.

15. In support of the submission, the Learned Counsel
appearing for the Respondent No.2 Sri. Ravi. S. Samprathi has
placed reliance upon the decision reported in,
SCCH-7 20 M.V.C.No.1070/2016
C/W M.V.C.No.1071/2016

2011 ACJ 1131 High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore
(Subash V/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., and Others),
wherein, it is observed that,

Quantum -Injury -Principles of
assessment-Loss of future income-Injured
aged 36,m conductor in Corporation-
Tribunal has awarded Rupees 1,86,525/-
towards loss of future income-Whether the
Tribunal erred in awarding compensation
towards loss of future income even when
injured continued in service of the
Corporation as conductor-Held: yes.

Quantum-Injury-Head and shoulder-
Fracture of right clavicle, acromion and
lacerated wound over occipital and
forehead-Injured took treatment in Hospital
for more than 3 days and Doctor opined
that, out of 4 injuries 2 were simple and
others were grievous injuries in nature-
Injured aged 36, conductor in Corporation,
suffered 35 percent disablement in respect
of right upper limb and 13 percent disability
in respect of whole body- Tribunal awarded
Rupees 1,86,525/- for loss of future income,
Rupees 45,000/- for pain and sufferings
Rupees 16,570/- for loss of income during
treatment period, Rupees 22,500/- for loss
of amenities, unhappiness and discomforts
and Rupees 3,000/- for medical expenses,
conveyance, nourishing food and attendant
charges- Appellate Court taking into
consideration that, injured continued in
service as conductor in the Corporation
disallowed compensation towards loss of
future income and awarded Rupees
45,000/-, Rupees 30,000/- for loss of
amenities, Rupees 5,000/- for medical
SCCH-7 21 M.V.C.No.1070/2016
C/W M.V.C.No.1071/2016

expenses, nourishing food and attendant
charges and Rupees 16,750/- towards loss
of earnings, during treatment period-Award
of Rupees 2,73,595 reduced to Rupees 96,
570/-.

16. My answers to the above said Issues are as follows;

M.V.C.No.1070/2016

Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative,

Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative,

The Petitioner is
entitled for compensation
of Rupees 1,05,773/- with
interest at the rate of 9%
p.a. from the date of the
petition till the date of
payment, from the
Respondent No.2.

Issue No.3 : As per the final Order,

M.V.C.No.1071/2016

Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative,

Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative,

The Petitioner is entitled
for compensation of Rupees
2,64,839/- with interest at
the rate of 9% p.a.
(excluding future medical
expenses of Rupees
15,000/-) from the date of
SCCH-7 22 M.V.C.No.1070/2016
C/W M.V.C.No.1071/2016

the petition till the date of
payment, from the
Respondent No.2.

Issue No.3 : As per the final Order,

for the following;
REASONS

17. ISSUE NO.1 IN BOTH THE CASES :- The P.W.1, who
is the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.1070/2016, has stated in his
examination-in-chief that, on 14.01.2016 at about 7.30 p.m., he
was proceeding in a Car bearing Registration No.KA-02-AE-4113
along with his wife, who is the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.1071/2016
and his son Gagan, were proceeding from Bangalore to Yagati,
Kadur Taluk, on N.H-206, i.e., on Tiptur Arasikere Road, while
proceeding so near Lakshmidevarahalli Gate, the driver of the said
Car driven the same with high speed, reckless, rash and negligent
manner and while over taking another vehicle moved the Car
towards extreme right side, i.e., on wrong side of the road and hit
against another Car bearing Registration No.KA-41-B-3467, which
was coming from opposite direction and caused the accident. He
has further stated that, due to the impact, both have sustained
severe injuries and he had sustained fracture of left humerus and
immediately after the accident, he was taken to the Government
Hospital, Hassan, wherein, first-aid treatment was given and they
shifted to KCG Hospital, Bangalore, wherein, the said injuries was
confirmed, treated conservatively and POP Cast was applied. He
has further stated that, he had taken treatment at Sindhi Hospital
wherein, treated as an outpatient and on 28.01.2016, he got
SCCH-7 23 M.V.C.No.1070/2016
C/W M.V.C.No.1071/2016

admitted to Bowring Hospital, wherein, POP Cast was removed
and then, X-rays were taken and the said fracture was treated
conservatively with fresh POP cap application and discharged on
30.01.2016. He has further stated that, the Arasikere Rural Police
have registered a criminal case and charge sheeted as against the
driver of the Car bearing Registration No.KA-02-AE-4113 and the
cause of the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the
said Car by its driver.

18. The P.W.2, who is the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.1071/2016, who is the wife of the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.1070/2016, has also stated the same evidence of P.W.1
in her examination-in-chief and has further stated that, due to the
impact, she had sustained fracture shaft of left humerus mid
1/3rd with radial in palsy left and immediately after the accident,
she was taken to the Government Hospital, Hassan, wherein, she
was admitted, X-rays and necessary investigations were done and
the said fracture was confirmed and treated conservatively and
discharged on 19.01.2016 and then, on 20.01.2016, she was
shifted to KCG Hospital, Bangalore, wherein, admitted and the
said fracture was treated with surgery and internal fixation and
discharged on 29.01.2016.

19. No doubt, both the Petitioners have not examined the
eye witness or independent witness to consider the accident in
question, which caused to them. Further, both the Petitioners
have not produced the MLC Register and Police Intimation.
Further, the P.W.1 in his cross-examination has stated that, at
SCCH-7 24 M.V.C.No.1070/2016
C/W M.V.C.No.1071/2016

the time of accident, there were 5 persons traveling in the said Car
including the driver and they commenced their traveling from
Bangalore at 3.30 p.m. and the said Owner Ravi was driving the
said Car at the time of accident and the accidental road was a
straight road and there was no road median and before the
accident, he has not seen the another Car and there was head on
collusion in between the said two Cars and before the accident,
the driver of their Car had seen the another Car, which was
coming on opposite direction by overtaking another vehicle.

20. But, based on the grounds that, the Petitioners have
not examined the eye witness or any independent witness to
consider the accident in question, which caused to them, non-
production of MLC Register and Police Intimation by the
Petitioners in the present petition as well as the evidence elicited
from the mouth of P.W.1 by the Respondent No.2 during the
course of cross-examination, it cannot be believed and accept
that, there is contributory negligence is also attributed on the part
of the driver of the Car bearing Registration No.KA-41-B-3467,
which was coming from opposite direction, as, to corroborate their
respective case and oral version, the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.1070/2016 has produced Ex.P.1 FIR, Ex.P.2 Complaint,
Ex.P.3 Crime Details Form, Ex.P.4 MVI Report, Ex.P.5 Wound
Certificate, Ex.P.6 Charge Sheet, Ex.P.12 X-ray Films 2 in
numbers, Ex.P.22 Discharge-cum-Identity and Ex.P.28 Case Sheet
through P.W.4, who is an Orthopedic Surgeon at Lady Curzon
Hospital and the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.1071/2016 has produced
Ex.P.13 Wound Certificate, Ex.P.14 Discharge Summary of Shri
SCCH-7 25 M.V.C.No.1070/2016
C/W M.V.C.No.1071/2016

Chamarajendra Hospital, Hassan, Ex.P.15 Discharge Summary of
KC General Hospital, Ex.P.16 Outpatient Record, Ex.P.17 Medical
Bills 17 in numbers, Ex.P.18 Medical Prescriptions 13 in numbers
and Ex.P.19 X-ray Films 9 in numbers and has also produced
Ex.P.26 Inpatient Case File through P.W.3, who is a Medical
Record Technician at KCG Hospital, Bangalore, which clearly
disclosed that, the Car bearing Registration No.KA-41-B-3467 was
proceeding on the left side of the road at the time of accident and
the driver of the Car bearing Registration No.KA-02-AE-4113,
wherein, both the Petitioners were traveling, came on wrong side
on the opposite direction and dashed to the said Car bearing
Registration No.KA-41-B-3467 and the entire negligence is on the
part of the driver of the offending Car bearing Registration No.KA-
02-AE-4113 and due to the said impact, the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.1070/2016 had sustained simple injury and initially, he
took treatment at Sri Chamarajendra Hospital, Hassan on
14.01.2016 at 10.30 p.m. itself and thereafter, he took treatment
to the said accidental injury at P.D. Hinduja Sindhi Hospital on
27.01.2016, wherein, it is diagnosed fracture neck of humerus
and thereafter, he took treatment to the said accidental injury at
Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital, Bangalore, by admitting as an
inpatient from 25.01.2016 to 29.01.2016, i.e., 2 days, wherein, it
was finally diagnosed surgical neck right humerus fracture + retro
positive and the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.1071/2016 has sustained
two grievous injuries and initially, she took treatment to the said
accidental injuries at Sri. Chamarajendra Hospital on 14.01.2016
at 10.30 p.m. itself and thereafter, by admitting as an inpatient
from 14.01.2016 to 19.04.2016, i.e., 6 days, she took treatment to
SCCH-7 26 M.V.C.No.1070/2016
C/W M.V.C.No.1071/2016

the said accidental injuries in the said Hospital and during the
course of treatment, it is finally diagnosed fracture shaft humerus
left 1/3rd and later, by admitting as an inpatient from 20.01.2016
to 29.01.2016, i.e., 10 days, she took treatment to the said
accidental injuries at KCG Hospital, which is clear from the
following discussion. Further, the P.W.1 in his cross-examination
has clearly stated that, the Owner of the Car bearing Registration
No.KA-02-AE-4113 was Ravi, who is the Respondent No.1, who
was driving the said Car and the accidental road was a straight
road and he was sitting in the Car in the front seat and the vehicle
movements in front of the said Car was very clear before the
accident and before the accident, the driver of their Car had seen
the another Car, which was coming on opposite direction by
overtaking another vehicle. From the said evidence of P.W.1, it
appears that, though the Respondent No.1 was clearly seen the
oncoming vehicle at the time of accident, instead of it, he had not
taken care to control the speed of his Car and took it on safer side
of the accidental road, but, dashed to it to the another Car bearing
Registration No.KA-41-B-3467, wherein, the Complainant was
traveling. In is very much clear from the oral evidence of P.W.1
and P.W.2 that, the entire negligence is on the part of the
Respondent No.1 in driving the offending Car bearing Registration
No.KA-02-AE-4113 and there was no negligence on the part of the
driver of the another Car bearing Registration No.KA-41-B-3467.

21. The contents of Ex.P.1 FIR and Ex.P.2 Complaint
disclosed that, the eye witness and inmate of another Car bearing
Registration No.KA-41-B-3467 has lodged Ex.P.2 Complaint before
SCCH-7 27 M.V.C.No.1070/2016
C/W M.V.C.No.1071/2016

the Arasikere Rural Police as against the driver of the offending
Car bearing Registration No.KA-02-AE-4113, i.e., the Respondent
No.1 by alleging that, on 04.01.2016 at 7.30 p.m., when he was
driving his Car bearing Registration No.KA-41-B-3467 along with
his family members near Lakshmidevarahalli Gate, Arasikere -
Tiptur Road, N.H.-206, on the left side of the accidental road, at
the time of accident, the offending Car bearing Registration No.KA-
02-AE-4113 came on opposite direction from Tiptur with very high
speed, rash and negligent manner by its driver and trying to
overtake the Lorry, which was coming from Tiptur and took it on
the right side of the accidental road and dashed to their Car and
due to the said impact, both the Cars caused damages and he and
the inmates of the Car sustained injuries and they were shifted to
the Government Hospital, Arasikere and as per the advice of the
treated Doctors, they were shifted to the Government Hospital,
Hassan and as such, the delay in lodging the complaint and
hence, he prayed to take necessary legal action as against the
driver of the offending Car bearing Registration No.KA-02-AE-4113
and based on Ex.P.2 Complaint, the said Police have registered a
criminal case as against the driver of the offending Car, wherein,
both the Petitioners were traveling, for the offences punishable
under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC under Crime No.23/2016. The
reasons for delay in lodging the complaint on the next day of the
accident is clearly explained by the Complainant in Ex.P.2
Complaint itself, i.e., immediately after the accident
Hospitalization and he and his family members, who were
traveling in the said Car had sustained injuries.
SCCH-7 28 M.V.C.No.1070/2016
C/W M.V.C.No.1071/2016

22. The contents of Ex.P.3 Crime Details Form, Ex.P.4 MVI
Report disclosed that, at the time of accident, the Car bearing
Registration No.KA-41-B-3467 was proceeding on the extreme left
side of the accidental road, but, the offending Car bearing
Registration No.KA-02-AE-4113 came on opposite direction with
very high speed, rash and negligent manner and took it on right
side and dashed to the said Car bearing Registration No.KA-41-B-
3467 and at the time of accident, both the Petitioners were
traveling in the offending Car bearing Registration No.KA-02-AE-
4113 and if the Respondent No.1 could have taken a little care
while driving it, he could have avoided the said road traffic
accident and the offending Car bearing Registration No.KA-02-AE-
4113 as well as its driver, i.e., the Respondent No.1, are very
much involved in the said road traffic accident. The damages
caused to both the Cars are clearly shown in Ex.P.4 MVI Report,
which disclosed the terrific impact of the said road traffic accident.
It is clearly mentioned in Ex.P.4 MVI Report that, the accident was
not occurred due to any mechanical defects of the said Cars.

23. The contents of Ex.P.5 Wound Certificate disclosed
that, with a history of road traffic accident on 14.01.2016 at 7.30
p.m., the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.1070/2016 was brought to Sri
Chamarajendra Hospital, Hassan, on 14.01.2016 at 10.30 p.m.
itself and on examination, it is found that, there is no external
injury, but, he had sustained simple injury.

24. The contents of Ex.P.9 Admission Certificate dated
27.01.2016 issued by P.D. Hinduja Sindhi Hospital, disclosed
SCCH-7 29 M.V.C.No.1070/2016
C/W M.V.C.No.1071/2016

that, on 27.01.2016, the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.1070/2016 was
admitted in the said Hospital and during the course of treatment,
it is diagnosed fracture neck of left humerus.

25. The contents of Ex.P.22 Discharge-cum-Identity Card,
Ex.P.28 Case Sheet, Ex.P.29 X-ray Film and Ex.P.12 X-ray Film
disclosed that, by admitting as an inpatient from 28.01.2016 to
29.01.2016, i.e., 2 days, the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.1070/2016
took treatment to the said accidental injuries at Bowring and Lady
Curzon Hospital, wherein, it is diagnosed surgical neck right
humerus fracture + retro positive.

26. The P.W.4, who is an Orthopedic Surgeon of Bowring
and Lady Curzon Hospital has stated in his examination-in-chief
that, he has examined the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.1070/2016
clinically and radiologically, who said to have met with road traffic
accident on 14.01.2016 and he was initially treated at Sri
Jayachamarajendra Hospital and later, at KCG Hospital,
Bangalore, P.D. Hinduja Hospital and Bowring and Lady Curzon
Hospital and he was diagnosed for fracture surgical humerus neck
sided and he was treated conservatively.

27. From the above said medical evidence, it is clearly
proved that, in the said road traffic accident, the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.1070/2016 had sustained one grievous injury and
initially, he took treatment to the said accidental injury at Sri.
Jayachamarajendra Hospital and thereafter, he had taken
treatment at KCG Hospital, Bangalore, P.D. Hinduja Sindhi
SCCH-7 30 M.V.C.No.1070/2016
C/W M.V.C.No.1071/2016

Hospital and Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital, Bangalore and
by admitting as an inpatient from 28.01.2016 to 29.01.2016, i.e.,
2 days, he took treatment to the said accidental injuries at
Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital.

28. The contents of Ex.P.13 Wound Certificate disclosed
that, with alleged history of road traffic accident, the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.1071/2016 was brought to Sri. Chamarajendra
Hospital, Hassan, on 14.01.2016 at 10.30 p.m., and on
examination, it is found that, she has sustained injury, i.e.,
deformity of left arm and fracture shaft humerus left middle 1/3rd .

29. The contents of Ex.P.14 Discharge Summary disclosed
that, by admitting as an inpatient from 14.01.2016 to 19.01.2016,
i.e., 6 days, the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.1071/2013 took treatment
to the accidental injury and during the course of treatment, it is
finally diagnosed fracture shaft humerus left middle 1/3rd.

30. The contents of Ex.P.15 Discharge Summary of KCG
Hospital disclosed that, with a history of road traffic accident
while traveling in a Car, the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.1071/2016
was brought to K.C. General Hospital on 20.01.2016 and on
examination, it is finally diagnosed fracture shaft humerus with
radial N palsy left and by admitting as an inpatient from
20.01.2016 to 29.01.2016, i.e., 10 days, she took treatment to the
said accidental injuries at K.C. General Hospital.
SCCH-7 31 M.V.C.No.1070/2016
C/W M.V.C.No.1071/2016

31. The contents of Ex.P.19 X-ray films 9 in numbers and
Ex.P.26 Inpatient Case Sheet, which are produced by the Medical
Record Technician, who has been examined as P.W.3, also clearly
disclosed about the nature of injuries sustained by the Petitioner
in M.V.C.No.1071/2016 in the said road traffic accident as well as
the line of treatment taken by her in the said Hospital. Further,
the P.W.4 has stated in his examination-in-chief that, the
Petitioner in M.V.C.No.1071/2016 is said to have met with road
traffic accident on 14.01.2016 and she was initially treated at
Jaya Chamarajendra Hospital and it is diagnosed fracture shaft
humerus with radial N palsy left.

32. From the above said medical evidence, it is clearly
proved that, in the said road traffic accident, the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.1071/2016 had sustained grievous injuries and initially,
she took treatment to the said accidental injuries at Sri.
Jayachamarajendra Hospital by admitting as an inpatient from
14.01.2016 to 19.01.2016, i.e., for 6 days and later, she took
treatment to the said accidental injury at K.C. General Hospital as
an inpatient from 20.01.2016 to 29.01.2016, i.e., for 10 days,
totally for 14 days, she took treatment to the said accidental
injuries.

33. The contents of Ex.P.6 Charge Sheet disclosed that,
since during the course of investigation, it is found that, due to
very high speed, rash and negligent manner of driving of the
offending Car bearing Registration No.KA-02-AE-4113 by its
driver, i.e., the Respondent No.1, who was a R.C. Owner-cum-
SCCH-7 32 M.V.C.No.1070/2016
C/W M.V.C.No.1071/2016

Driver of the said offending Car, the said road traffic accident was
taken place on 14.01.2016 at 4.30 p.m., near Lakshmidevarahalli
Gate, Arasikere - Tiptur Road, which dashed to the Car bearing
Registration No.KA-41-B-3467, which was driven by the
Complainant on the extreme left side of the road on opposite
direction, when the Respondent No.1 took his Car by overtaking
the Lorry on right side of the accidental road and at that time, he
dashed to the said Car of the Complainant and due to the said
impact, both the Cars caused damages and the inmates of both
the Cars had sustained injuries and the Petitioners in both cases
had sustained simple and grievous injuries and the Respondent
No.1 has also sustained simple injuries and as such, after
thorough investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed a charge
sheet as against the Respondent No.1 for the offences punishable
under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC. There is no allegation leveled
by the Investigating Officer in Ex.P.6 Charge Sheet as against the
Complainant about his negligence in the commission of the said
road traffic accident while he was driving his Car bearing
Registration No.KA-41-B-3468.

34. From the above said material evidence, both oral and
documentary, it is clearly proved that, the entire negligence is on
the part of the Respondent No.1 in driving the offending Car
bearing Registration No.KA-02-AE-4113 in the commission of the
said road traffic accident, wherein, both the Petitioners were
traveling and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of
the Car bearing Registration No.KA-41-B-3468 and the offending
Car bearing Registration No.KA-02-AE-4113 as well as its driver
SCCH-7 33 M.V.C.No.1070/2016
C/W M.V.C.No.1071/2016

i.e., the Respondent No.1, are very much involved in the said road
traffic accident, wherein, both the Petitioners had sustained
grievous injuries. Accordingly, I answered Issue No.1 in both
the cases in the Affirmative.

35. ISSUE NO.2 IN BOTH THE CASES :-

36. ISSUE NO.2 IN M.V.C.NO.1070/2016 :- The P.W.1
has stated that, prior to the date of accident, he was hale and
healthy and at the time of accident, he was 39 years. No
authenticated documents are produced by the Petitioner to
consider his actual age at the time of accident. However, all the
above referred Police and medical documents clearly disclosed
that, at the time of accident, the Petitioner was 39 years old.
Hence, the age of the Petitioner is considered as 39 years at the
time of accident.

37. The P.W.1 has stated that, he was working as a Driver-
cum-Conductor at B.M.T.C., 3rd Depot, Shanthi Nagar, Bangalore
and he was drawing salary a sum of Rupees 24,000/- per month.
The Petitioner has produced Ex.P.7 Employment Identity Card
relating to him, Ex.P.20 Salary Certificate and Ex.P.21 Leave
Certificate dated 01.10.2016. On perusal of the said oral evidence
of P.W.1 as well as the contents of Ex.P.7, Ex.P.20 and Ex.P.21, it
is clearly proved that, at the time of accident, the Petitioner was
working as a Driver-cum-Conductor at B.M.T.C. and he was
drawing gross salary of Rupees 27,026-72 per month. Hence, the
SCCH-7 34 M.V.C.No.1070/2016
C/W M.V.C.No.1071/2016

income of the Petitioner is considered as Rupees 27,026-72 per
month at the time of accident.

38. The P.W.1 has stated that, he was treated
conservatively and POP cast was applied at K.C. General Hospital.
He has further stated that, he got admitted to Bowring Hospital,
wherein, POP cast was removed and the fracture was treated
conservatively with fresh POP cast application and discharged on
30.01.2016 with an advice for regular follow-up treatment and bed
rest and accordingly, he had taken follow-up treatment and bed
rest. The P.W.4 has stated that, the Petitioner was treated
conservatively.

39. Based on the contents of Ex.P.5 Wound Certificate,
Ex.P.22 Discharge-cum-Identity Card, Ex.P.28 Case Sheet and
Ex.P.29 X-ray film, Ex.P.12 X-ray Films 2 in numbers, this
Tribunal has already observed and come to the conclusion that, in
the said road traffic accident, the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.1070/2016 had sustained fracture neck of right
humerus + retropositive and initially, he took treatment to the
said accidental injuries at Sri. Chamarajendra Hospital, Hassan
and thereafter, he took treatment to the said accidental injuries at
P.D. Hinduja Sindhi Hospital by admitting as an inpatient on
27.01.2016 and later, he took treatment to the said accidental
injuries at Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital. It is clearly
mentioned in Ex.P.9 Admission Certificate that, the plan of
treatment is surgical line of management. It is also clearly
mentioned in Ex.P.22 Discharge-cum-Identity Card that, the
SCCH-7 35 M.V.C.No.1070/2016
C/W M.V.C.No.1071/2016

Petitioner had sustained surgical neck, right humerous fracture +
retropositive conservative management was given and by
admitting as an inpatient from 28.01.2016 to 29.01.2016, i.e., 2
days, he took treatment to the said accidental injuries at Bowring
and Lady Curzon Hospital. On perusal of the nature of injuries
sustained by the Petitioner, in the said road traffic accident and
line of treatment taken by him to the said accidental injuries by
admitting as inpatient, it appears that, even after discharge from
the Hospital, the Petitioner was required the regular follow-up
treatment to the said accidental injuries as per advise of the
treated Doctor. To prove the follow-up treatment taken by him to
the said accidental injury, the Petitioner has produced Ex.P.8 OPD
Book, Ex.P.23 OPD Slip and Ex.P.24 OPD Book. Therefore, the
nature of injuries sustained by the Petitioner in the said road
traffic accident, the line of treatment taken by him to the said
accidental injuries, the length of treatment and follow-up
treatment even after discharge from the Hospital as stated by the
P.W.1 and P.W.4, can very well be believed and accept.

40. The P.W.1 has stated that, due to the injuries
sustained in the said accident, he had not attended the duty for a
period of two months and he lost his leave for the said period.

41. The P.W.4 has stated that, the Petitioner complains of
pain and difficulty in using his left upper limb for activities of daily
living and he gives history of inability to lift weight and carryout
overhead activities. He has further stated that, on examination of
the Petitioner, there is wasting of left shoulder girdle and arm, his
SCCH-7 36 M.V.C.No.1070/2016
C/W M.V.C.No.1071/2016

recent X-ray No.38718 dated 30.12.2016 shows united fracture
surgical neck left humerus. By considering the range of
movements of right and left shoulder, girth, loss of muscle power
in left shoulder and co-ordinated activities, the P.W.4 has opined
that, the total disability of left upper limb is 28% and that of whole
body is 14%. He has further stated that, the Petitioner said to be a
Driver-cum-Conductor in BMTC and the said disability come in
the way of his working. The P.W.4 has produced Ex.P.27 OPD
Card and Ex.P.28 X-ray Films.

42. But, only based on the said oral evidence of P.W.1 and
P.W.4 coupled with the contents of above referred medical
documents, it cannot be believed and accept that, due to the said
accidental injuries, the Petitioner has sustained disability to left
upper limb is 28%, which is 14% to the whole body, as, the P.W.4
is not a treated Doctor and he has not issued the disability
certificate. Further, the Petitioner has not produced the disability
certificate issued either by the treated Doctor or any competent
Doctor. Further, the P.W.4 in his cross-examination has clearly
stated that, the Petitioner has not undergone any operation and
now the Petitioner is not under any treatment. He has further
stated that, he has not verified the follow-up treatment records
relating to the Petitioner and he has not issued medical certificate
to the Petitioner by mentioning that, he is fit for duty. He has
further clearly stated that, if the Petitioner is having 28% disability
of left upper limb, generally, he cannot be in a position to do
Driver-cum Conductor work. Further, it is very much clear from
the contents of the above referred medical documents that, only
SCCH-7 37 M.V.C.No.1070/2016
C/W M.V.C.No.1071/2016

POP cast was applied and conservative management was given to
the fracture site of the Petitioner. Further, the P.W.1 in his cross-
examination has clearly stated that, now he is doing work drawing
salary of Rupees 26,000/- per month. From the said evidence of
P.W.1 and P.W.4, it is made crystal clear that, the accidental
injury no way caused any difficulty to the Petitioner to continue
the same job and even after the accident, the Petitioner has
continued the same job without any disturbance. Further the
P.W.4 has not specifically assessed the permanent physical and
functional disability of the Petitioner by considering his nature of
work. Further, the Petitioner has not produced any authenticated
documents issued by his employee to show that, after the
accident, he is unable to do the job of Driver-cum-Conductor and
as such, his employer has allowed him to do the light work by
considering the disability. Therefore, the said extent of 14% whole
body disability as stated by the P.W.4 is on higher side and as
such, it cannot be believed and accept.

43. However, in the said road traffic accident, the
Petitioner had sustained surgical neck right humerus fracture +
retro positive and by admitting as an inpatient for 2 days, he took
treatment to the said accidental injury at Bowring and Lady
Curzon Hospital and also took initial treatment at Sri.
Chamarajendra Hospital, Hassan and P.D. Hinduja Sindhi
Hospital and conservative management was given to him to the
said accidental injury and since the Petitioner is still continuing
the same job without any disturbance and at the time of accident,
the Petitioner was 39 years old, by considering all these material
SCCH-7 38 M.V.C.No.1070/2016
C/W M.V.C.No.1071/2016

factors, this Tribunal feels that, due to the said accidental injury,
the Petitioner is suffering from permanent physical and functional
disability of 10% to the whole body, which is believable and
acceptable one.

44. No doubt, this Tribunal has come to the conclusion
that, due to the said accidental injury, the Petitioner is suffering
from permanent physical and functional disability of 10% to the
whole body. But, based on this disability, the Petitioner is not
entitled for compensation towards future loss of income, which is
arising out of the said 10% whole body disability, as, the Petitioner
in his cross-examination has clearly stated that, now he is doing
work and drawing salary of Rupees 26,000/- per month. From
this, it appears that, the said accidental injuries and the disability
no way come in the way of the Petitioner to do his day to day
activities and job. Therefore, the Petitioner is not entitled for
compensation towards loss of future income arising of the
permanent physical and functional disability of 10% to the whole
body, which caused due to the accidental injury.

45. However, in the said road traffic accident, the
Petitioner has sustained surgical neck fracture of humerus +
retropositive and he took treatment to the said accidental injuries
by admitting as inpatient and he was 39 years old at the time of
accident and he is having permanent physical and functional
disability of 10% to the whole body, the Petitioner is entitled for
compensation under the following heads.
SCCH-7 39 M.V.C.No.1070/2016
C/W M.V.C.No.1071/2016

46. As per Ex.P.5 Wound Certificate and evidence of P.W.1
and P.W.4, the Petitioner had sustained grievous injury. The
Petitioner was in the Hospital as an inpatient from 28.01.2016 to
29.01.2016, i.e., for 2 days. Due to the said injury, the Petitioner
could have definitely suffered a lot of pain and agony during the
course of treatment. Considering the said aspects, it is just,
proper and necessary to award a sum of Rupees 25,000/- towards
pain and suffering.

47. As it is already observed that, the age of the Petitioner
was 39 years. He has to lead remaining his entire life with 10%
permanent physical and functional disability, which comes in the
way of enjoyment of life. Therefore, it is just and proper to award a
sum of Rupees 20,000/- towards loss of amenities of life to the
Petitioner.

48. The Petitioner had sustained grievous injury and he
was in the Hospital as an inpatient for 2 days. The Petitioner has
produced Ex.P21 Leave Certificate dated 01.10.2016, which
disclosed that, the Petitioner was on Leave from 15.01.2016 to
15.03.2016, i.e., for 2 months. The income of the Petitioner is
already considered as Rupees 27,026-72 per month. The
Petitioner had lost Leave Encashment benefits due to the said
accidental injury by applying such kind of Leave from 15.01.2016
to 15.03.2016. Therefore, the Petitioner deprived the income
during the said period, i.e., for 2 months. Therefore, at the rate of
Rupees 27,026-72 per month, a sum of Rupees 54,053-44 is
SCCH-7 40 M.V.C.No.1070/2016
C/W M.V.C.No.1071/2016

awarded towards loss of income during the laid up period, which
is rounded off Rupees.54,053/-.

49. The P.W.1 has stated that, he had incurred a sum of
Rupees 15,000/- towards medical expenses and Rupees 25,000/-
towards conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges. In this
regard, the Petitioner has produced Ex.P.10 Medical Bills 9 in
numbers, which is amounting of Rupees 3,720/- and Ex.P11
Medical Prescriptions 3 in numbers. The Petitioner has taken
treatment at Sri. Chamarajendra Hospital, Hassan and Bowring
and Lady Curzon Hospital, Bengaluru, wherein, he was taken
treatment as an inpatient from 28.01.2016 to 29.01.2016, i.e., for
2 days. Considering the nature of the injury and line of treatment
given to the Petitioner and length of treatment, the possibility of
spending the said amount for the medicines cannot be doubted.
Therefore, it is necessary to award the said actual medical
expenses of Rupees 3,720/- to the Petitioner.

50. The P.W.1 and P.W.4 have not stated anything about
the future medical assistance and its expenses. Further, only
conservative management was given to the Petitioner to the said
accidental injury during the course of treatment at Bowring and
Lady Curzon Hospital, Bengaluru. Further, the Petitioner has
continued the said job without any disturbance. Hence, the
Petitioner is not entitled for compensation towards future medical
expenses.
SCCH-7 41 M.V.C.No.1070/2016
C/W M.V.C.No.1071/2016

51. As the Petitioner was taken treatment as an inpatient
for 2 days, it is necessary to award a sum of Rupees 1,000/-
towards conveyance charges, Rupees 1,000/- towards attendant
charges and Rupees 1,000/- towards food, nourishment and diet
charges etc.,

52. In this way, the Petitioner is entitled for the following
amount of compensation:-

Sl. No. Compensation heads Compensation amount
1. Pain and sufferings Rs. 25,000-00
2. Loss of amenities of life Rs. 20,000-00
Loss of income during laid
3. Rs. 54,053-00
up period
4. Actual medical expenses Rs. 3,720-00
5. Conveyance Rs. 1,000-00
6. Attendant Charges Rs. 1,000-00
Food, Nourishment &
7. Rs. 1,000-00
Diet charges
TOTAL Rs. 1,05,773-00

53. In all, the Petitioner is entitled for total compensation
of Rupees 1,05,773/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per
annum on the above said sum from the date of petition till
payment.

54. ISSUE NO.2 IN M.V.C.NO.1071/2016 :- The P.W.2
has stated that, prior to the date of accident, she was hale and
healthy and at the time of accident, she was aged 23 years old.
The Petitioner has not produced any authenticated documents to
SCCH-7 42 M.V.C.No.1070/2016
C/W M.V.C.No.1071/2016

consider her actual age at the time of accident. But, the above
referred Police and medical documents clearly disclosed that, at
the time of accident, the Petitioner was 32 years old. Hence, the
age of the Petitioner is considered as 32 years at the time of
accident.

55. The P.W.2 has stated that, she was working as a Tailor
and she was earning a sum of Rupees 12,000/- per month. But,
to consider her avocation and income, the Petitioner has not
produced any authenticated documents. Even the Petitioner has
not produced her Bank statement and not disclosed her
educational qualification. Hence, the said income of Rupees
12,000/- per month at the time of accident as stated by the P.W.2
cannot be believed and accept. However, it is very much clear from
the contents of the above referred Police and medical documents
that, the Petitioner is a house wife, who is a wife of the Petitioner
in M.V.C.No.1070/2016, by considering the same, this Tribunal
feels that, it is just, proper and necessary to consider the notional
income of the Petitioner is of Rupees 6000/- per month at the time
of accident. Hence, the notional income of the Petitioner is
considered as Rupees 6,000/- p.m., at the time of accident.

56. The P.W.2 has stated that, she was treated
conservatively and discharged on 19.01.2016 from the
Government Hospital, Hassan and thereafter on 20.01.2016, she
was shifted to KCG Hospital, Bangalore, wherein, the said fracture
was treated with surgery and internal fixation was done and
discharged on 29.01.2016 with the advise for regular follow-up
SCCH-7 43 M.V.C.No.1070/2016
C/W M.V.C.No.1071/2016

treatment and bed rest, and accordingly she had taken follow-up
treatment and bed rest. The P.W.4 has stated that, the Petitioner
underwent surgery in the form of ORIF with plate and screws on
21.01.2016. Based on the contents of Ex.P.13 Wound Certificate,
Ex.P.14 Discharge Summary, Ex.P.15 Discharge Summary,
Ex.P.19 X-ray Films and Ex.P.26 Inpatient Case File, this Tribunal
has already observed and come to the conclusion that, in the said
road traffic accident, the Petitioner had sustained deformity of left
arm fracture shaft humerus left middle 1/3rd and she took
treatment to the said accidental injuries at Sri. Chamarajendra
Hospital, Hassan, by admitting as an inpatient from 14.01.2016 to
19.01.2016, i.e., for 6 days, wherein, during the course of
treatment, it is finally diagnosed fractures of humerus left middle
1/3rd and thereafter, she was admitted at K.C. General Hospital
on 20.01.2016, wherein, during the course of treatment, it is
diagnosed fracture shaft humerus with radial in palsy left by
admitting as an inpatient from 20.01.2016 to 29.01.2016, i.e., 10
days, she took treatment to the said accidental injuries at K.C.
General Hospital, totally for 16 days, she took treatment to the
said accidental injuries. It is also clearly mentioned in Ex.P.14
Discharge Summary that, the Petitioner was discharged at request
and she had taken 'U' slab application to the accidental injuries at
Sri. Chamarajendra Hospital, Hassan. The contents of Ex.P.15
Discharge Summary disclosed that, during the course of
treatment at K.C. General Hospital, Fracture shaft humerus left
operation on 21.01.2016 done under GA through anterior lateral
incision plane B/W lateral border of Biceps and deltoid,
branchialis incised and she was adviced during discharge to come
SCCH-7 44 M.V.C.No.1070/2016
C/W M.V.C.No.1071/2016

after 5 days for suture removal and recovery of radial nerve
operative explained to the Petitioner and her attender to retain 'U'
slab dynamic lock up splint along with medications. The Petitioner
has also produced Ex.P.16 OPD Record, which clearly disclosed
that, even after discharge from the Hospital, the Petitioner took
treatment to the said accidental injury. Further, the P.W.2 in her
cross-examination has clearly stated that, day before yesterday,
she visited the Doctor and he said that, now the fracture is
uniting. Hence, based on the said medical evidence, it can be
believed and accept the nature of the injuries sustained by the
Petitioner in the said road traffic accident, the line of treatment
taken by her to the said accidental injuries, the length of
treatment and follow-up treatment as per the advice of the treated
Doctors.

57. The P.W.2 has stated that, due to the injuries
sustained in the accident, and due to cause of permanent
disability, even now she is unable to do her Tailoring profession
and she is not getting her income. She has further stated that,
now she had not recovered from the injuries sustained in the said
accident and she is getting pain over left hand, and she cannot lift
or carry weights and she cannot do any work of her Tailoring
profession, she cannot do house hold works and the injuries
sustained are caused permanent disability.

58. The P.W.4 has stated that, the Petitioner complains of
pain and difficulty in using her left upper limb for activities of
daily living and she gives history of inability to lift weights,
SCCH-7 45 M.V.C.No.1070/2016
C/W M.V.C.No.1071/2016

carryout overhead activities and also to do tailoring. He has
further stated that, on examination of the Petitioner, there is
wasting of left shoulder girdle and upper limb is seen, surgical
scar (keloid) about 15 cms long is seen over left arm and her
recent X-ray No.38719 dated 30.12.2016 shows united fracture
shaft of left humerus with implants in situ. By considering the
mobility component in respect of restriction of right sided and left
sided elbow, girth and co-ordinated activities, the P.W.4 has
opined that, total disability of left upper limb at 40% and that of
the whole body is 20%. He has further stated that, the Petitioner
said to be a Tailor and the said disability will come in the way of
her work. The P.W.4 has produced Ex.P.30 OPD Card and Ex.P.31
X-ray Film.

59. But, based on the said oral evidence of P.W.1 and
P.W.4 coupled with the contents of all the above referred medical
documents, it cannot be believed and accept that, due to the said
accidental injuries, the Petitioner is suffering from permanent
disability of 20% to the whole body, as, admittedly, the P.W.4 is
not a treated Doctor and the Petitioner has not examined the
treated Doctor to consider the difficulties and disabily, which is
suffering by her due to the said accidental injuries. Further, the
Petitioner has not produced disability certificate issued either by
the P.W.4 or treated Doctor or any other competent Doctor.
Further, the Petitioner has utterly failed to prove her avocation
and income at the time of accident. Further, at the time of
accident, the Petitioner was a house wife. Further, the P.W.4 in
his cross-examination has clearly stated that, the Petitioner was
SCCH-7 46 M.V.C.No.1070/2016
C/W M.V.C.No.1071/2016

underwent operation and now the Petitioner is having implants in
situ and 3-4 months is required for union of the fracture. From
the said evidence of P.W.4, it appears that, now the Petitioner is
still having implants in situ to the fracture site and if the said
implants are removed, the said extent of disability will definitely be
reduced and the assessment of disability by the P.W.4 is pre-
mature one. The P.W.4 has further stated that, he has not verified
the follow-up records. From this, it appears that, while assessing
the disability of the Petitioner, the P.W.4 has not verified all the
medical documents relating to the Petitioner. Further, the P.W.4
in his cross-examination has stated that, the loss of muscle power
to left shoulder is 1st grade and he has no personal knowledge
about the avocation of the Petitioner, which disclosed that, by
considering the nature of work of the Petitioner, the P.W.4 has not
assessed the disability of the Petitioner. Therefore, the said extent
of 20% whole body disability as stated by the P.W.4, is on higher
side and as such, it cannot be believed and accept.

60. However, at the time of accident, the Petitioner was 32
years old and she was a house wife and in the said road traffic
accident, she had sustained two grievous injuries and by
admitting as an inpatient totally for 16 days, she took treatment to
the said accidental injuries in the Hospitals and still the Petitioner
is having implants in situ, by considering these material factors,
this Tribunal feels that, due to the said accidental injuries, the
Petitioner is suffering from permanent physical and functional
disability of 12% to the whole body, which is believable and
SCCH-7 47 M.V.C.No.1070/2016
C/W M.V.C.No.1071/2016

acceptable one. Hence, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation
under the following heads.

61. As this Tribunal has already come to the conclusion
that, the permanent physical and functional disability of the
Petitioner is of 12%. This would certainly come in the way of the
future life of the Petitioner and thereby, her income to that extent
would be definitely reduced. Therefore, the Petitioner is entitled for
future loss of income arising out of the permanent physical and
functional disability of 12%.

62. As this Tribunal has already come to the conclusion
that, the age of the Petitioner was 32 years at the time of accident.
The multiplier corresponding to the said age as per Sarala
Varma's case is 16.

63. As the Petitioner is suffering from permanent physical
and functional disability of 12% to the whole body. The income of
the Petitioner is already considered as Rupees 6,000/- per month.
Therefore, the loss arising out of the said 12% disability for
monthly income of Rupees 6,000/- by applying multiplier 16
comes to Rupees 1,38,240/-, i.e., (Rs.6,000/- x 12 x 16 x 12%).

64. As per Ex.P.13 Wound Certificate and evidence of
P.W.2 and P.W.4, the Petitioner had sustained two grievous
injuries. The Petitioner was in the Hospital as an inpatient from
14.01.2016 to 19.01.2016, i.e., for 6 days and from 20.01.2016 to
29.01.2016, i.e., for 10 days, totally for 16 days. Due to the said
SCCH-7 48 M.V.C.No.1070/2016
C/W M.V.C.No.1071/2016

injuries, the Petitioner could have definitely suffered a lot of pain
and agony during the course of treatment. Considering the said
aspects, it is just, proper and necessary to award a sum of Rupees
40,000/- towards pain and suffering.

65. As it is already observed that, the age of the Petitioner
was 32 years. She has to lead remaining her entire life with 12%
permanent physical and functional disability, which comes in the
way of enjoyment of life. Therefore, it is just and proper to award a
sum of Rupees 20,000/- towards loss of amenities of life to the
Petitioner.

66. The Petitioner had sustained two grievous injuries and
she was in the Hospital as an inpatient for 6 days and she could
not do any work at least for 3 months and thereby, she deprived
the income. Therefore, at the rate of Rupees 6,000/- per month, a
sum of Rupees 18,000/- is awarded towards loss of income during
the laid up period.

67. The P.W.2 has stated that, he had incurred a sum of
Rupees 40,000/- towards medical expenses and Rupees 25,000/-
towards conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges. In this
regard, the Petitioner has produced Ex.P.17 Medical Bills 17 in
numbers, which is amounting of Rupees 22,599/- and Ex.P.18
Medical Prescriptions 13 in numbers. The Petitioner has taken
treatment at Sri Chamarajendra Hospital, Hassan, and K.C.
General Hospital, wherein, she was taken treatment as an
inpatient from 14.01.2016 to 19.01.2016, i.e., for 6 days and from
SCCH-7 49 M.V.C.No.1070/2016
C/W M.V.C.No.1071/2016

20.01.2016 to 29.01.2016, i.e., for 10 days, totally for 16 days.
Considering the nature of the injuries and line of treatment given
to the Petitioner and length of treatment, the possibility of
spending the said amount for the medicines cannot be doubted.
Therefore, it is necessary to award the said actual medical
expenses of Rupees 22,599/- to the Petitioner.

68. The P.W.2 has not stated anything about the future
medical assistance and its expenses. The P.W.4 has stated that,
the Petitioner need another surgery for implants removal, which
wound cost around Rupees 20,000/- in Private set-up. It is clearly
mentioned in Ex.P.15 Discharge Summary about anterior lateral
incision plane B/W lateral border of biceps and deltoid, brachalias
incised, which disclosed about the insertion of implants in situ.
The said implants have to be removed and therefore, the Petitioner
requires the amount for future medical expenses. Neither the
Petitioner nor P.W.4 produced the estimation for removal of
implants. However, this Tribunal feels that, it is just, proper and
necessary to award future medical expenses of Rupees 15,000/- to
the Petitioner.

69. As the Petitioner was taken treatment as an inpatient
for 16 days, it is necessary to award a sum of Rupees 3,000/-
towards conveyance charges, Rupees 3,000/- towards attendant
charges and Rupees 5,000/- towards food, nourishment and diet
charges etc.,
SCCH-7 50 M.V.C.No.1070/2016
C/W M.V.C.No.1071/2016

70. In this way, the Petitioner is entitled for the following
amount of compensation:-

Sl. No. Compensation heads Compensation amount
Loss of future income
1. Rs. 1,38,240-00
arising out of 12% Disability
2. Pain and sufferings Rs. 40,000-00
3. Loss of amenities of life Rs. 20,000-00
Loss of income during laid
4. Rs. 18,000-00
up period
5. Actual medical expenses Rs. 22,599-00
6. Future medical expenses Rs. 15,000-00
7. Conveyance Rs. 3,000-00
8. Attendant Charges Rs. 3,000-00
Food, Nourishment &
9. Rs. 5,000-00
Diet charges
TOTAL Rs. 2,64,839 -00

71. In all, the Petitioner is entitled for total compensation
of Rupees 2,64,839/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per
annum on the above said sum (excluding future medical expenses
of Rupees 15,000/-) from the date of petition till payment.

72. While answering Issue No.1, this Tribunal has already
come to the conclusion that, the entire negligence is on the part of
the Respondent No.1 in driving the offending Car bearing
Registration No.KA-02-AE-4113 in the commission of the said
road traffic accident, wherein, both the Petitioners were traveling
and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the Car
bearing Registration No.KA-41-B-3468 and the offending Car
bearing Registration No.KA-02-AE-4113 as well as its driver, i.e.,
SCCH-7 51 M.V.C.No.1070/2016
C/W M.V.C.No.1071/2016

the Respondent No.1, are very much involved in the said road
traffic accident, wherein, both the Petitioners had sustained
grievous injuries.

73. Both the Petitioners in the cause title of their
respective petitions have clearly mentioned that, the Respondent
No.1 was a R.C. Owner and the Respondent No.2 was an Insurer
of the offending Car bearing Registration No.KA-02-AE-4113 and
its Insurance Policy No.0000000003669046, valid from
20.12.2015 to 19.12.2016. The Respondent No.2 in its written
statement has denied the very issuance of Insurance Policy in
favour of the Respondent No.1 relating to the offending Car
bearing Registration No.KA-02-AE-4113, his driving licence and
the vehicular documents relating to the said offending Car. But,
by adducing acceptable material evidence, the Respondent No.1
has not proved the said contentions. There is no allegation leveled
by the Investigating Officer in Ex.P.6 Charge Sheet as against the
Respondent No.1 that, at the time of accident, he was not having a
valid and effective driving license to drive such class of offending
Car and he was not having the valid vehicular documents relating
to the offending Car bearing Registration No.KA-02-AE-4113.
Under such circumstances, it can be safely held that, at the time
of accident, the Respondent No.1 was a R.C. Owner-cum-Driver
and the Respondent No.2 was an Insurer of the offending Car
bearing Registration No.KA-02-AE-4113 and its Insurance Policy
was valid, which covers the date of accident. The violation of the
terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy by the Respondent
No.1 is also not proved by the Respondent No.2. Under such
SCCH-7 52 M.V.C.No.1070/2016
C/W M.V.C.No.1071/2016

circumstances, the Respondent No.1 being a R.C. Owner-cum-
Driver and the Respondent No.2 being an Insurer of the offending
Car bearing Registration No.KA-02-AE-4113, are jointly and
severally liable to pay the above said compensation and interest to
both the Petitioners as ordered. Since, the Respondent No.2 is an
Insurer, it shall indemnify the Respondent No.1.
In view of the above said reasons, the principles enunciated in the
decisions cited by the Learned Counsel appearing for the
Respondent No.2 are aptly applicable to the present facts and
circumstances of the case on hand. Hence, Issue No.2 in
M.V.C.No.1070/2016 and M.V.C.No.1071/2016 are answered
accordingly.

74. ISSUE NO.3 IN M.V.C.No.1070/2016 :- For the
aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following;

ORDER

The petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, is hereby partly allowed with costs.

The Petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rupees 1,05,773/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of payment, from the Respondent No.2.

SCCH-7 53 M.V.C.No.1070/2016

C/W M.V.C.No.1071/2016 The Respondent No.2 shall deposit the said compensation and interest in this Tribunal, within two months from the date of this Order.

                  In    the   event     of   deposit   of
             compensation      and     interest,   entire

amount shall be released in the name of the Petitioner through account payee cheque, on proper identification.

Advocate's fee is fixed at Rupees 1,000/-.

Original copy of the Judgment shall be kept in M.V.C.No.1070/2016 and the copy of the same shall be kept in M.V.C.No.1071/2016.

Draw award accordingly.

75. ISSUE NO.3 IN M.V.C.NO.1071/2016 :- For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following;

SCCH-7 54 M.V.C.No.1070/2016

C/W M.V.C.No.1071/2016 ORDER The petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, is hereby partly allowed with costs.

The Petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rupees 2,64,839/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. (excluding future medical expenses of Rupees 15,000/-) from the date of the petition till the date of payment, from the Respondent No.2.

The Respondent No.2 shall deposit the said compensation and interest in this Tribunal, within two months from the date of this Order.

             In    the   event        of    deposit    of
         compensation        and     interest,    entire

amount shall be released in the name of the Petitioner through account payee cheque, on proper identification.

SCCH-7 55 M.V.C.No.1070/2016

C/W M.V.C.No.1071/2016 Advocate's fee is fixed at Rupees 1,000/-.

Original copy of the Judgment shall be kept in M.V.C.No.1070/2016 and the copy of the same shall be kept in M.V.C.No.1071/2016.

Draw award accordingly.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and then, pronounced by me in the open Court, on this, the 24th day of May, 2017.) (INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR) IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.

ANNEXURE

1. WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE PETITIONERS :-

         P.W.1       :   Sri.Gopi. Y.S.
         P.W.2       :   Smt. Roopa. T.R.
         P.W.3       :   Simon. G.A.
         P.W.4       :   Dr. S.A. Somashekar

2. DOCUMENTS MARKED BY THE PETITIONERS :-

         Ex.P.1      :   True Copy of FIR
 SCCH-7                           56       M.V.C.No.1070/2016
                                      C/W M.V.C.No.1071/2016

         Ex.P.2    :   True Copy of Complaint
         Ex.P.3    :   True Copy of Crime Details Form
         Ex.P.4    :   True Copy of MVI Report
         Ex.P.5    :   True Copy of Wound Certificate
         Ex.P.6    :   True copy of Charge Sheet
         Ex.P.7    :   Notarized Xerox copy of Employment

Identity Card relating to Y.S. Gopi Ex.P.8 : OPD Book Ex.P.9 : Admission Certificate dated 27.01.2016 Ex.P.10 : Medical Bills (9 in nos.) Ex.P.11 : Medical Prescriptions (3 in nos.) Ex.P.12 : X-ray Films (2 in nos.) Ex.P.13 : True copy of Wound Certificate Ex.P.14 : Discharge Summary of Shri Chamarajenda Hospital, Hassan Ex.P.15 : Discharge Summary of K.C. General Hospital Ex.P.16 : Outpatient Record Ex.P.17 : Medical Bills (17 in nos.) Ex.P.18 : Medical Prescriptions (13 in nos.) Ex.P.19 : X-ray Films (9 in nos.) Ex.P.20 : Salary Certificate Ex.P.21 : Leave Certificate dated 01.10.2016 Ex.P.22 : Discharge-cum-Identity Card Ex.P.23 : OPD Slip Ex.P.24 : OPD Book Ex.P.25 : Authorization Letter dated 20.12.2016 Ex.P.26 : Inpatient Case File Ex.P.27 : OPD Card Ex.P.28 : Case Sheet Ex.P.29 : X-ray Film Ex.P.30 : OPD Card Ex.P.31 : X-ray Film

3. WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE RESPONDENTS :-

- NIL -

SCCH-7 57 M.V.C.No.1070/2016

C/W M.V.C.No.1071/2016

4. DOCUMENTS MARKED BY THE RESPONDENTS :-

- NIL -

(INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR) IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Bangalore District Court

In M.V.C.No.1071/2016 Herself Has Been ... vs No.2 on 24 May, 2017