Bangalore District Court
Mr.Raghunath @ Raghu vs The Manager on 27 August, 2016
BEFORE THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU.
(SCCH.13)
DATE: THE 27th DAY OF AUGUST 2016
PRESENT :
SMT.PANCHAKASHARI M., M.Com., LL.B.,
II Addl. Small Causes Judge &
XXVIII ACMM, Bengaluru.
M.V.C.No. 5238 of 2013.
PETITIONER: Mr.Raghunath @ Raghu,
S/o Puttarangappa,
Aged about 33 years,
R/at No.603, Shreeram Temple,
Shanthipura,
Bengaluru -560 100.
vs.
RESPONDENTS: 1. . The Manager,
Tata AIG Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd.,
5th floor, West Entrance,
Khanija Bhavan, Race Course Road,
Bengaluru-560 001.
.
(Policy No.015233541400 from
11.2.2013 to 10.2.2014)
2. Mr.Ramesh.Babu
S/o Desai M.Narasiman,
R/at No.150,
Mahathma Gandhi Road,
Denkinikote, Hosur,
-o0o-
2 MVC.5238/2013
SCCH.13
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed this petition under Sec.166 of M.V.Act. 1989, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident.
2. The brief facts of the petitioner's case are that on 21.6.2013 at about 7.20 p.m., when he was proceeding as a pillion rider in the motor cycle bearing No. KA-51-EB- 2862 which was ridden by his friend on the extreme left side on Banneraghatta road to Electronic City, on Hosur road and when they reached near Munireddy Mavina Thopu, near Yellenahalli Bridge, Bengaluru, a Duster Car bearing No. TN-70-J-5959 was parked on the road without giving any indicator or any reflector triangle signal dangerously. As a result, his motor cycle came in contact with the said Duster Car. Due to the impact, both the rider and pillion rider fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Blossom Hospital and thereafter to Sparsh Hospital, Bengaluru wherein he was treated as an inpatient from 22.6.2013 to 27.06.2013, due to head injuries, he was shifted to KIMs hospital, 3 MVC.5238/2013 SCCH.13 wherein he took treatment as an inpatient from 27.06.2013 to 18.07.2013 and spent considerable amount towards medical expenses.
The Electronic City Traffic police have registered a case in Crime No.120/2013 under Sec.279 and 338 of IPC against the driver of said Duster Car bearing No. TN-70-J- 5959.
Prior to the accident, the petitioner was hale and healthy and working as a Coolie and earning Rs.6,000/- p.m. Due to the accidental injuries, he could not able to do any work as he was doing earlier. Hence, he claims compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- from the respondents with costs and interest at 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till realization. On the above grounds, the petitioner has prayed for allowing the petition.
3. Having served with the notice, the respondents No.1 and 2 have appeared through their counsels and filed the written statements with the following contentions:-
4. 1st respondent in its written statement disputing the involvement of the vehicle as well as cause of the accident and contended that the alleged accident took 4 MVC.5238/2013 SCCH.13 place due to sole negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle who rode the same without knowledge of riding and without possessing valid vehicle documents in a rash and negligent manner without observing insured vehicle. The alleged car was parked on the extreme left side of the road by putting parking lights. The petition is bad for non- joinder of necessary and proper parties to the proceedings as the petitioner had not made the rider, owner and insurer of the said motor cycle as parties to the petition. It had admitted that they issued the policy against the alleged Duster Car bearing No. TN-70-J-5959 valid from 11.02.2013 to 10.02.2014, but its liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy.
5. Respondent No.2 had admitted that he is the RC owner of the Duster Car bearing No. TN-70-J-5959 which was insured with the respondent No.1 and contended that the said car was parked on the outside of the road by switching on the yellow indicator parking lights and not parking on the road side. The accident was occurred due to the negligent riding of the said Motor cycle rider and not from the respondent as alleged in the petition. 5 MVC.5238/2013
SCCH.13 Both the respondents denied the age, avocation, income and expenses incurred for the treatment as contended by the petitioner. It is contended by the 2nd respondent that the hospital bills are concocted and created. On the above grounds, both the respondents prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6. On the basis of the above rival contentions of the parties, the following issues have been framed:-
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he had sustained grievous injuries in road traffic accident that alleged to have been occurred on 21.06.2013 at about 07.20 p.m. on NICE Road, near Munireddy Mavina Thopu, Yellenahalli Bridge, near Munireddy Mavina Thopu, Bengaluru, was due to parking of Duster Car bearing Reg.No.TN-70-J-5959 on the road without giving any indictor without giving any reflector triangle signal by its driver as alleged in the petition?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation? If so, to what extends and from whom?
3. What order or award?
7. In order to prove the petition claim, the 1st petitioner & three witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.4 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to P.18. 2nd Respondent is examined as RW1 and got marked Exs.R1 to R4. 1st respondent has not led any evidence. 6 MVC.5238/2013
SCCH.13
8. Heard the arguments of both the sides .
9. Taking into consideration, the oral and documentary evidence placed before the Tribunal, my findings to the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1 : In the affirmative.
Issue No.2: Partly in the affirmative Issue No.3: As per final order for the following:-
REASONS
10. Issue No.1 :-
The petitioner in the present case had claimed compensation in respect of the accidental injuries sustained by him while he was proceeding in the Motor cycle bearing No. KA-51-EB- 2862. It is the contention of the petitioner that on 21.06.2013, at about 7.20 p.m. when he was proceeding as a pillion rider in the said motor cycle from Bannerghatta to proceed towards Electronic City on Hosur Road along with his friend who was riding the motor cycle on the left side of the road, slowly and cautiously and when they reached near Munireddy Mavina Thopu NICE Road, a Duster Car bearing Reg.No.TN-70-J- 5959 was parked on the road without giving any indication 7 MVC.5238/2013 SCCH.13 or without giving any reflector triangle signal in a dangerous manner. As a result, the petitioner's motor cycle came in contact with the Duster Car and the petitioner met with an accident and sustained injuries.
11. In order to substantiate his contention, the petitioner got himself examined as PW1 and in his affidavit filed for examination in chief, he reiterated the petition averments. In support of his oral evidence, he has produced documents which are marked as Exs.P1 to P12. Exs.P1 to P6 are the prosecution papers in the criminal case. Ex.P1 is the FIR with complaint, Ex.P2 is the Charge sheet whereby as per charge sheet, the driver of the Duster Car is charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sec.282, 338 and 304-A of IPC. Ex.P3 is the Spot Sketch which gives picture of the spot, where, the accident had taken place.
12. As per the contention of the petitioner, the alleged accident is due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the car whereby, he parked the Car bearing Reg.No.TN-70-J-5959 on the road without any indicator 8 MVC.5238/2013 SCCH.13 dangerously. As such, their motor cycle came in contact with the car. The width of the NICE road is 40 feet. The accident spot is shown at a distance of 6 feet from the left end corner. Though, the accident spot makes out that the vehicle was on the left end corner, here the point that has to be taken into consideration whether any prior indication is given before parking the vehicle as it is on the road. Ex.P4 is the Mahazar further speaks by making out the distance. In the Mahazar, it is stated that the road at the accident spot measures 40 feet width and the accident is at the distance of 6 feet towards northern side. The car was facing towards Electronic city road. Further, it is noted that the vehicle was parked without any indication as well as reflector Triangle.
13. Now, coming to the written statement contention of the respondent No.1, wherein it had taken contention that the situation of the allege accident had been twisted and described as if the insured vehicle is responsible for the alleged accident. The rider of the motor cycle rode the same without knowledge of riding without possessing valid vehicle documents in a rash and negligent manner without 9 MVC.5238/2013 SCCH.13 observing the insured vehicle which was parked on the extreme left side of the road by putting parking lights to know the on coming vehicles. So, the alleged accident took place due to the sole negligence of the rider of the motor cycle. In the cross examination, PW1 had stated that prior to the accident, he did not observe the car, two wheeler was being ridden by his employer's son-Kumar. He had denied the suggestion that at the time of alleged accident that the rider of the motor cycle was riding the same in a high speed. Further, he had stated that the parking light of the vehicle was not switched on. He had denied the suggestion that the car was parked by switching on parking light on the left side of the road with indicator.
14. The respondent No.1 who is the owner of the Car got examined as RW1, had stated in his evidence that he is the registered owner of the car and he was driving the same with valid driving licence. It is also deposed by him that while proceeding from Bannerghatta Road towards Hosur road on the NICE road on 21.06.2013 at about
6.p.m. the rider of the two wheeler came in a high speed and also in a rash and negligent manner and dashed 10 MVC.5238/2013 SCCH.13 against the parked Car. He had switched on the yellow indicator parking lights and the car was parked on the extreme out side of the road. He had produced the attested copy of Judgment in CC.No.6327/13 which is marked as Ex.R3. On perusal of the said judgment, it makes out that the accused who is the driver of the Car is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sec.283, 338 and 304(A) of IPC, but the acquittal is on the basis of benefit of doubt where the criminal court had not taken into consideration that in the case there were two injured persons. As such, the police had filed charge sheet under Sec.283 and 338 of IPC, later on the death of rider of the motor cycle, who was under treatment under Sec.304(A) was included. So, merely that the accused who is the driver of the car bearing Reg.No.TN-70-J-5959 is acquitted in the criminal care, it does not mean that there is no negligence on his part, is acquittal before the criminal court is only based on the benefit of doubt. Respondent No.1 had not adduced any evidence.
15. The counsel on behalf of the respondent No.2 at the time of arguments, had submitted that as the rider of 11 MVC.5238/2013 SCCH.13 the motor cycle had hit on the back of the car which was parked on the left side of the road and there being sufficient space on the right side of the car, 50% of the contributory negligence has to be attributed to the rider of the motor cycle, but in order to substantiate its contention, it had not adduced any evidence nor placed any materials to show that the car was parked with indicator parking lights. There is no evidence to make out that the rider of motor cycle was on excessive speed.
16. The Advocate on behalf of the petitioner had relied on decision reported in 2007 (1) T.A.C. 795 (S.C.) and ILR 2002 KAR 893. In ILR 2002 KAR 893 -
(Kumari Jyothi and others -vs- Mohd. Usman Ali and others) wherein it is held as follows:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Central Act NO.59 of 1988) Sections 122, 166 and 168- Accident occurred about one hour after midnight when a motor cycle driven by the deceased crashed into an unattended Lorry parked without any sign or indication to warn the other road users and in this accident both the Motor-Cycle driver and pillion rider died. Tribunal apportioned negligence equally between the driver of the Motor Cycle and the 12 MVC.5238/2013 SCCH.13 driver of the Lorry. In appeal High Court held that the negligence could be attributed only to the Driver of the Lorry in view of the provisions of Sec.122 of the Act.
In the above referred decision, whereby, in the said case also, the rider of the motor cycle having come with the contact with unattended Lorry parked without any sign or indication. In the said case, the High court has held that the negligence could be attributed only to the Driver of the lorry under the provisions of Sec.122 of the Act.
17. From the oral and documentary evidence which is available on record, whereby the evidence of PW1 coupled with the police documents i.e. Mahazar and spot Sketch itself makes out clear picture of accident spot. Though the car can be seen from the spot sketch at a distance of 6 ft. from the left side corner of tar road, as it is 6 ft, the distance comes within the main road, the driver of the car should have taken all precautions to give proper indication of parking the vehicles on the road. Merely because, the road is wide enough, he cannot take the contention that the petitioner would have proceeded from the middle of the road as the road is wide enough. As it is 13 MVC.5238/2013 SCCH.13 a busy road, the vehicles will be moved frequently, in such a situation before parking the vehicle on the road, the driver of the vehicle should take every precaution to avoid the accident. So, the evidence which is available on record makes out that the alleged accident had taken place due to the negligence of the driver of the Duster Car bearing Reg.No.TN-70-J-5959. On the other hand, the wound certificate and other treatment documents which are produced before the Tribunal, further substantiate the petitioner's contention that he had sustained injury in road traffic accident which had taken place on 21.06.2013 and the said injuries are sustained in the alleged accident. In the circumstances, I hold the above issue in the Affirmative.
18. Issue No.2:
As the petitioner has proved the Issue NO.1, he is entitled for the compensation from the respondents No.1 and 2 as there is valid policy as per Ex.R4 to the quantum arrived as below:14 MVC.5238/2013
SCCH.13 : QUANTUM :
(i) Pain and Sufferings:
Petitioner in the present case having sustained injury had stated in his evidence that he had been treated as inpatient in Blossom Hospital thereafter in Sparsh Hospital and also in KIMs hospital from the date of accident i.e. from 21.06.2013 and he was continuously treated as inpatient till 18.07.2013 in three different hospitals by taking treatment as inpatient for all together 27 days. The doctor who had treated the petitioner is examined as PW3, who had stated that the petitioner having sustained head injury, CT Scan discloses chronic subdural hygroma in right fronto parietal convexity with thin B/L thin SDH was found. He was treated conservatively for all the injuries during the course of treatment. Further, the doctor had stated that now he has stammering speech and also the petitioner had complains heaviness in right sided limbs, moving all over limbs. He was referred to Neuro psychological for assessment of disability. Hence, taking into consideration, the nature of the injury sustained by the petitioner and the period of treatment taken as an inpatient and also further consequences which the 15 MVC.5238/2013 SCCH.13 petitioner had made to suffer on account of head injury, it is reasonable to hold that the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and sufferings.
(ii) Medical Expenses:
The petitioner in the present case having sustained head injury was first treated at Blossom hospital from 21.06.2013 to 22.06.2013 where he had incurred a sum of Rs.10,350/- as per Inpatient Bill at sl.No.5 of Ex.P9.
Thereafter, from 22.06.2013 to 27.06.2013 he was treated as inpatient in Sparsh Hospital and the Inpatient bill at Sl.No.1 of Ex.P9 makes out the amount incurred as Rs.76.665/-. Further, he was treated as inpatient in KIMs hospital from 27.06.2013 to 18.07.2013 wherein the IP bill of the said hospital is also produced at sl.No.7 of Ex.P9 and the total amount incurred towards inpatient charges is Rs.26,485/-. Apart from this, the petitioner had also produced authorized medical prescriptions slips as well as medical bills for the purchase of medicines as well as other treatment which he has undergone and also equipment purchased for the purpose of treatment. So, all together, the total expenses incurred towards treatment comes to 16 MVC.5238/2013 SCCH.13 Rs.1,66,597.54. As the petitioner had produced IP payment receipts to support his contention with regard to the expenses incurred for his treatment, he is entitled for the said amount.. As the expenses incurred for the medical treatment is supported by authorized medical prescriptions and medical bills, the petitioner is entitled for the said amount. Hence, I hold that the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,66,597.54 towards medical expenses.
(iii) Loss of earnings during laid down period:-
The petitioner in the present case had stated in his petition that he was working as Coolie and earning Rs.6,000/- per month. Even in his chief examination, he had deposed that he is a Coolie by profession and earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- p.m. It is also pertinent to take into consideration the disability assessed by Neuro Surgeon which is marked as Ex.P16 styled as 'Neurobehavioral and cognitive assessment Clinical date sheet', whereby she had stated his occupation before accident as Fruit stall worker. He had also stated his income before the accident is Rs.200/- per day. So, taking into consideration of this 17 MVC.5238/2013 SCCH.13 fact as the accident had taken place during the year 2013 and wages being paid in and around Bengaluru, it is reasonable to hold the notional income of the petitioner as Rs.6,000/- p.m. Here in the present case, the petitioner had taken treatment as an inpatient all together for 27 days nearly for one month. His disability is assessed on 05.10.2015. Ex.P15 is the OPD Book which makes out that the petitioner had visited hospital for follow up treatment. Ex.P14 is the MLC Record of KIMs Hospital and Ex.P18 is the OPD Record. Hence, taking into consideration, the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner, he needs at least for a period of four months for recovery. So, the said period of four months has to be consider as rest period which is without any earnings. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.24,000/-( Rs.6,000/- x 4 months ) towards loss of income during laid down period.
(iv) Loss of future earnings due to disability :-
The petitioner in the present case had opted to examine the Doctor who had issued Disability Certificate through Competent Neuro psychology, as PW3. He had 18 MVC.5238/2013 SCCH.13 stated that on the basis of neuro psychological assessment by Dr.Prathiba Sharan, his over all neurological disability is 35.55 %. Ex.P16 is the said assessment sheet where the doctor had given reference and on the basis of Summary of test result, had opined combined neurobehavioral and cognitive disability is 35.55%. PW3 had also stated what are the difficulties now faced by the petitioner. He is still facing stammering speech, heaviness in right sided limbs.
At this juncture, this Tribunal makes reference to the decision reported in (2015) Acci.C.R. 115 (S.C.)- ( Raj Kumar -vs- Ajay Kumar and another), wherein in Sub head(B) it is held as follows:
" B. Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995- Sec.2(i) - Permanent disability- Where claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, assessment of compensation under head of loss of future earnings would depend upon effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity-Tribunal should not mechanically apply percentage of permanent disability as percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity."19 MVC.5238/2013
SCCH.13 In the said decision, it is held that the disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the manner considered normal for a human being. Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation, after achieving the maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to remain for the remainder life of the injured. The extent of permanent disability of the limb could not be considered to be functional disability of body nor could it be assumed to result in a corresponding extent of loss of earning capacity, as the disability would not have prevented him from carrying on his avocation.
Basing upon the reasoning of the above referred decision, whereby, the present petitioner having neurobehavioral and cognitive disability of 35.55%, but what extent the said disability will affect his earning capacity has to be taken into consideration. In Ex.P12, the doctor had noted some of the behavioral of the petitioner, wherein the doctor had noted with regard to his 20 MVC.5238/2013 SCCH.13 employment as " if employed, does he go to work regularly ? No". Further, it is noted that " he likes his job but not able to cope up because of his behavioral problem, forgetfulness, head ache and giddiness. So, this act of activities of the petitioner will be reasonably affecting his earning capacity. Hence, taking into consideration of this fact, as the petitioner's Neurobehavioral disability is assessed at 35.55%, it can be reasonable to hold that the earning capacity of the petitioner resulting in disability at 35% to the whole body.
The petitioner being aged 33 years at the time of accident. In order to prove his age, the petitioner has produced Ex.P11-Election Identity Card, the date of birth of the petitioner is mentioned as 11.05.1980 and as per this document, the age of the petitioner as on the date of accident is 33 years. The respondents have not been disputed the age of the petitioner the time of cross examination of PW1.So, the age of the petitioner can be taken as per Ex.P11 as 33 years and as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Smt. Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation- 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) the appropriate multiplier applicable to the age group 21 MVC.5238/2013 SCCH.13 31 to 35 years would be '16'. Hence, the loss of future earnings on account of disability is arrived as follows:
Rs.6,000 x 12 x 16 x 35/100 = Rs.4,03,200/- Hence, the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.4,03,200/- towards loss of future earnings due to disability.
(v) Loss of amenities:- The petitioner herein being aged about 33 years at the time of accident and he is having family. Now, on account of accidental injury, he is unable to enjoy his life of fullest as before the accident. The activity assessed by the Doctor as per Ex.P16 makes out the present behavior of the petitioner. So, taking into consideration of this fact, it is appropriate to hold that the petitioner has lost some amount of amenity in his life.
Hence, considering this fact, it is reasonable to hold that the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of future amenities.
(vi) Conveyance, Nourishment, food and attending charges :-
The Petitioner from the date of accident till 18.07.2013, he was inpatient at different hospitals as he 22 MVC.5238/2013 SCCH.13 had sustained head injury, he needs almost care of attendants as well as diet food required during the course of treatment. Apart from that as he had not taken to three different hospitals while under treatment and also later on having visited hospitals for follow up treatment. Hence, having regard to the duration of the treatment, it is reasonable to hold that the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.27,000/- (Rs.1,000/- per day x 27 days) under the above head.
Hence, the following calculation:-
1. Pain & sufferings: Rs. 50,000/-
2. Loss of earnings during 24,000/-
Laid down period:
3. Medical Expenses: 1,66,597.54/-
4. Loss of future earnings: 4,03,200/-
5. Loss of amenities: 40,000/-
6. Conveyance, Nourishment, 27,000/-
Food and attending charges:
Total Rs.7,10,797.54/
-
Hence, this tribunal feels that it is just and proper to award the compensation of Rs.7,10,797.54/ rounded up to Rs.7,10,798/- which is the just and fair compensation. 23 MVC.5238/2013
SCCH.13
19. As per Sec.171 of the Motor Vehicle's Act, where any Claims Tribunal allows a claim for compensation, it can direct that in addition to the amount of compensation, simple interest shall be paid at such rate and from such date nor earlier than the date of making the claim. As per ruling reported in ILR 2000 Karnataka 1098, the case of Puttanna and another -vs- Lakshmana and others, it is held that unless there are special circumstances, interest that has to be awarded on the compensation amount is 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. Therefore, I hold that the petitioner is entitled for interest at the rate of 6% p.a.
20. So far as liability is concerned, it is not in dispute that on the date of accident the vehicle was duly insured with 1st respondent and 2nd respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle which caused the accident. Possession of valid DL by the driver of offending vehicle is also not in dispute. Therefore, respondent No.1 & 2 being the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. However, in view of subsistence of insurance policy, 1st respondent-insurance 24 MVC.5238/2013 SCCH.13 company shall deposit compensation amount in the court with interest at 6% p.a. Hence, I answer Issue No.2 accordingly.
21. Issue No.3:- In view of my findings on issue Nos.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner under Sec.166 of M.V. Act is hereby allowed in part with costs against the respondents No.1 and 2 as follows:
In view of the valid contract of Insurance between respondents No.1 and 2, the respondent No.1 is liable to pay the compensation amount of Rs.7,10,798/- to the petitioner with interest at the rate of Rs.6% P.A., from the date of the petition till the date of deposit in court.
The Respondent No.1 shall deposit the entire compensation amount within two months from today.
On deposit of the entire compensation amount, 60% of the amount be deposited as FD in the ratio of 50: 50 for a period of 3 years and 5 years respectively in the name of the petitioner in any of the nationalized bank or scheduled bank of 25 MVC.5238/2013 SCCH.13 his choice with liberty to draw the accrued interest on the said FD once in three months and the remaining amount shall be paid to the petitioner through the cheque under proper identification.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1000/-. Draw up award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcription revised typed by her on computer, corrected, signed & pronounced by me in open court on 27th day of August 2016.) (PANCHAKSHARI M.) II Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXVIII ACMM, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for petitioner :
PW.1 : Mr.Raghunatha @ Raghu PW.2 : Mr.Lingappa PW.3 : Dr.Aamresh S.B. PW.4 : Sowmya K.
List of documents marked for petitioner :
Ex.P-1 : CC of FIR with complaint
Ex.P-2 : Charge sheet
Ex.P-3 : Sketch
Ex.P-4 : Mahazar
Ex.P-5 : IMV Report
Ex.P-6 : Wound Certificate
Ex.P-7 : Discharge Summary of KIMS Hospital
Ex.P-8 : Discharge Summary of Sparsha Hospital
Ex.P-9 : 74 Medical Bills for Rs. 166597/-
Ex.P-10 : 39 Prescriptions
Ex.P-11 : NC of Election ID (compared with original
and returned back to the witness)
26 MVC.5238/2013
SCCH.13
Ex.P-12 : 2 Photos with CD
Ex.P-13 : Authorisation Letter
Ex.P-14 : IP Records
Ex.P-15 : OPD Book
Ex.P-16 : Neuro Behavioral and Cognizant
assessment report
Ex.P-17 : Authorisation Letter
Ex.P-18 : Case sheet
List of witnesses & documents for respondents :
RW1 : Mr.D.N.Rumesh Babu
Ex.R-1 : Attested copy of RC (compared with original
and returned)
Ex.R-2 : Attested copy of DL (compared with original
and returned)
Ex.R-3 : Attested copy of Judgment in CC No. 6327/13
(certified copy is produced in MVC No. 5647/13) Ex.R-4 : NC of Policy (PANCHAKSHARI M.) II Addl.Small Causes Judge & XXVIII ACMM, Bengaluru.
** 27 MVC.5238/2013 SCCH.13 AWARD SCCH.NO:13 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA: BANGALORE CITY M.V.C.No. 5238 of 2013.
PETITIONER: Mr.Raghunath @ Raghu, S/o Puttarangappa, Aged about 33 years, R/at No.603, Shreeram Temple, Shanthipura, Bengaluru -560 100.
vs. RESPONDENTS: 1. . The Manager, Tata AIG Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd., 5th floor, West Entrance, Khanija Bhavan, Race Course Road, Bengaluru-560 001.
.
(Policy No.015233541400 from 11.2.2013 to 10.2.2014)
2. Mr.Ramesh.Babu S/o Desai M.Narasiman, R/at No.150, Mahathma Gandhi Road, Denkinikote, Hosur,
-o0o-
WHEREAS, this petition filed on __________by the petitioner/s above named U/sec.110-A/166 of the M.V.C. Act praying for the compensation of Rs._________ (Rupees _________________________________for the injuries sustained by 28 MVC.5238/2013 SCCH.13 the petitioner/Death of ___________in a Motor Accident by Vehicle No.___________.
WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before Smt.Panchakshari M, II Addl. Judge, Member, Bengaluru, in the presence of Sri/Smt.________________ Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt.________________ Advocate for respondent. The claim petition is decreed as under :-
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner under Sec.166 of M.V. Act is hereby allowed in part with costs against the respondents No.1 and 2 as follows:
In view of the valid contract of Insurance between respondents No.1 and 2, the respondent No.1 is liable to pay the compensation amount of Rs.7,10,798/- to the petitioner with interest at the rate of Rs.6% P.A., from the date of the petition till the date of deposit in court.
The Respondent No.1 shall deposit the entire compensation amount within two months from today.
On deposit of the entire compensation amount, 60% of the amount be deposited as FD in 29 MVC.5238/2013 SCCH.13 the ratio of 50: 50 for a period of 3 years and 5 years respectively in the name of the petitioner in any of the nationalized bank or scheduled bank of his choice with liberty to draw the accrued interest on the said FD once in three months and the remaining amount shall be paid to the petitioner through the cheque under proper identification.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1000/-.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this_the .......... day of ................2016.) MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: BENGALURU.
COST OF PETITION
By the
Petitioner/s Respondentt
No.1 No.2
Court fee paid on Petition 10-00
Court fee paid on Powers
Court fee paid on I.A.
Process
Pleaders Fee
Total Rs.
Decree Drafted Scrutinized by
Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR
MEMBER, M.A.C.T,
METROPOLITAN AREA,
BENGALURU.
30 MVC.5238/2013
SCCH.13
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioner under Sec.166 of M.V. Act is hereby allowed in part with costs against the respondents No.1 and 2 as follows:
In view of the valid contract of Insurance between respondents No.1 and 2, the respondent No.1 is liable to pay the compensation amount of Rs.7,10,798/- to the petitioner with interest at the rate of Rs.6% P.A., from the date of the petition till the date of deposit in court.
The Respondent No.1 shall deposit the entire compensation amount within two months from today.
On deposit of the entire compensation amount, 60% of the amount be deposited as FD in the ratio of 50: 50 for a period of 3 years and 5 years respectively in the name of the petitioner in any of the nationalized bank or scheduled bank of his choice with liberty to draw the accrued interest on the said FD once in three months and the remaining amount shall be paid to the petitioner through the cheque under proper identification.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1000/-. Draw up award accordingly.
(PANCHAKSHARI M.) II Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXVIII ACMM, Bengaluru.31 MVC.5238/2013
SCCH.13 BEFORE THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU.
(SCCH.13) DATE: THE 18th DAY OF JULY 2014.
M.V.C.No. 5238 of 2013
PETITIONER: Mr.Raghunath @ Raghu
Vs.
RESPONDENTS: Tata AIG Ins.Co.Ltd. and another
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he had sustained grievous injuries in road traffic accident that alleged to have been occurred on 21.06.2013 at about 07.20 p.m. on NICE Road, near Munireddy Mavina Thopu, Yellenahalli Bridge, near Munireddy Mavina Thopu, Bengaluru, was due to parking of Duster Car bearing Reg.No.TN-70-J-5959 on the road without giving any indictor without giving any reflector triangle signal by its driver as alleged in the petition?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation? If so, to what extends and from whom?
3. What order or award?
(B.PUSHPANJALI) II Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXVIII ACMM, Bengaluru.