Bangalore District Court
Sri. H. Chandrappa vs Sri. V. Srinivas on 6 April, 2015
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
AT BENGALURU.
PRESENT: Smt. HIREMATH SHOBHARANI BABAYYA.
B.Com.LL.B.(Spl.)
XXII Additional Small Causes Judge
& Member MACT, Bengaluru.
DATED: This the 6th Day of April, 2015.
M.V.C.No.5977/2013
Petitioner : Sri. H. Chandrappa,
S/o Hemlanaik,
Aged 45 years,
Residing at:
No.502A, Amoda Valmark Apartments,
Doddakannanahalli,
Bannerghatta Road,
Bangalore-560083.
(Reptd.: By Smt. Radhika. B-
Advocate- Bengaluru).
- Versus -
Respondents : 1. Sri. V. Srinivas,
S/o Venkataramasetty,
No.607, Behind IPP Hospital,
Hanumanthanagar,
Kanakapura Town,
Ramanagar District.
2 SCCH-24
M.V.C.5977/2013
2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
RVR Complex,
Behind KSRTC Bus stand,
Ijoor, Ramanagaram,
Ramanagar District.
(Res.No.1: By Sri. M. Subramanya,
Advocate- Bengaluru).
Res.No.2: By Sri. D.N. Manjunatha Gupta
Advocate- Bengaluru).
(HIREMATH SHOBHARANI BABAYYA )
XXII ASCJ & MEMBER,
MACT-Bengaluru.
3 SCCH-24
M.V.C.5977/2013
JUDGEMENT
The petitioner has filed this claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming the compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him in the Motor Vehicles Accident.
2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner is as under:
That, on 11.08.2013 at about 4.00 p.m, the petitioner after finishing his work in the factory, going to his residence at Bangalore on his Bullet motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-01-ET-7587 in a carefull manner, when he reached near Sanjeevanayakanadoddi, on BWSSB road, Harohalli, at that time a car bearing Reg.No.KA-17-M-2286, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life came from opposite direction and dashed against the right portion of the Bullet motor cycle. Due to the 4 SCCH-24 M.V.C.5977/2013 impact the petitioner fell down and sustained multiple injuries.
3. It is alleged that, immediately after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to Apollo Hospital, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore for treatment. Wherein he was treated as an inpatient for a period of 8 days and underwent operation. Further he was admitted to the same Hospital for 2 days. Further doctor advised to take follow-up treatment even fortnightly.
4. It is alleged that, prior to the accident, he was working as a Production Manager at Original (P) Ltd., Harohalli Industrial area and drawing salary of Rs.1,07,030/- per month. Due to the accident he was still under bed rest as per doctor's advise and lost his income and put to great hardship and mental agony. The jurisdictional Harohalli Police have registered a case against the driver of the car bearing Reg.No. KA-17-M-2286 in their Crime No.352/2013. The 1st 5 SCCH-24 M.V.C.5977/2013 respondent being the owner of the car bearing registration No.KA-17-M-2286 and the 2nd respondent beings the insurer of the said vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. For all these reasons the petitioner has prayed to award the compensation along with interest and costs.
5. In response to the notice the respondent No.1 and 2 have appeared before this Tribunal and filed the detailed written statement respectively.
6. The 1st respondent has contended that, the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. This respondent has denied the allegations and averments made in the claim petition. This respondent specifically denied the age, avocation, income and incurred amount towards treatment. The compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly exhorbitant. The 1st respondent has admitted the 6 SCCH-24 M.V.C.5977/2013 ownership of the vehicle and he is having valid and effective driving licence. Further he admits that, at the time of alleged accident the vehicle had valid insurance policy and the same was insured with the 2nd respondent. For all these reasons prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
7. The 2nd respondent has contended that, the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is the contention of the 2nd respondent that, there is a delay in lodging the complaint and FIR, as per the averments of the petition, the accident has occurred on 01.08.2013, but the complaint and FIR has been lodged on 12.08.2013. It is contended that, the cause of accident and vehicle number has not been mentioned in the wound certificate and petitioner was not having valid driving licence and his vehicle had no insurance policy at the time of accident. This respondent has contended that, this tribunal has no 7 SCCH-24 M.V.C.5977/2013 jurisdiction to try this case. The 2nd respondent has denied all the allegations and averments made in the claim petition and the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same.
8. The 2nd respondent has contended that, the petition is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties, as the insurer and insured of the Bullet motor cycle is not made as party to this case. This respondent admits the issuance of insurance policy in respect of the Maruti Car-800 bearing Reg.No. KA-17-M-2286 and the liability of this respondent if, any is subject to the terms and conditions of the issuance of insurance policy. The 2nd respondent has contended that, the compensation claimed by the petitioner is exorbitant, excessive and unreasonable and the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. For all these reasons prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
8 SCCH-24 M.V.C.5977/2013
9. On the basis of the above pleadings and the rival contentions of both the parties, the following issues are framed:-
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he has sustained grievous injuries, in the Road Traffic Accident that occurred on 11.08.2013 at about 4.00 p.m, while proceeding on Bullet Motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-01-ET-7587 on BWSSB Pipeline, near Sanjeevanayakanadoddi, Harohalli Hobli, due to the rash and negligent driving of the car bearing Reg.No.KA-17-M-2286 by its driver as alleged ?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation as claimed ? If so, to what amount and from whom ?
3. What order or Award ?
10. In order to substantiate the case made out by the petitioner, the petitioner has got himself examined as P.W.1 and in support of his evidence, three witnesses have been examined as P.W.2 to PW.4 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.42. Thereafter, the petitioner closed his side evidence.
9 SCCH-24 M.V.C.5977/2013
11. In order to rebut the evidence so placed on record by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent has examined its Assistant Manager as RW-1 and got marked documents at Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2. Insptie of sufficient opportunity, the 1st respondent has not chosen to adduce evidence. Thereafter the respondents side evidence closed.
12. Heard the arguments. Perused the materials placed on record.
13. My findings on the above points are as here under:
Issue No.1 - In the Affirmative. Issue No.2 - Partly in the Affirmative.
The petitioner is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.11,67,523/-, From respondent No.1 and 2.
Issue No.3 - As per final order. For the following:
10 SCCH-24 M.V.C.5977/2013 REASONS Issue No.1:
14. It is the case of the petitioner that, on 11.08.2013 at about 4.00 p.m, the petitioner after finishing his work in the factory, going to his residence at Bangalore on his Bullet motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-01-ET-7587 in a careful manner, when he reached near Sanjeevanayakanadoddi, on BWSSB road, Harohalli, at that time a car bearing Reg.No.KA- 17-M-2286, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life came from opposite direction and dashed against the right portion of the Bullet motor cycle. Due to the impact the petitioner fell down and sustained multiple injuries.
15. In order to prove the actionable negligence, the petitioner himself has entered into witness box and filed affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief and got examined as PW 1. He reiterates the averments and the 11 SCCH-24 M.V.C.5977/2013 allegations made in the petition. He has deposed that, the accident in question was occurred due to the sole rash and negligent driving of the car bearing Reg.No. KA-17-M-2286 by its driver. During the course of cross-examination, P.W.1 has deposed that, he is the RC owner of the Bullet motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA- 01-ET-7587. He has admitted that, at the time of accident he had valid and effective driving licence to drive the class of vehicle. He has denied the suggestion put him that, in order to go hurriedly he was driving his motor cycle rash and negligently and the accident is due to his negligence and not due to the negligence of the driver of the car. He has further denied the suggestion that, the road was slope and he himself driving the motor cycle rash and negligently and lost control over the vehicle and sustained injuries.
16. The petitioner has relied upon various police documents produced at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6. Out of these 12 SCCH-24 M.V.C.5977/2013 documents, Ex.P.1 is copy of the First Information Report, Ex.P.2 is the copy of the Complaint, Ex.P.3 is copy of the Charge sheet, Ex.P.4 is Copy of Wound Certificate, Ex.P.5 is the copy of the IMV report and Ex.P.6 is the copy of the Mahazar. Ex.P.1, i.e. copy of the First Information Report, which discloses that, the criminal case has been registered against the driver of the Maruti car bearing Reg.No.KA-17-M-2286 for the offences punishable under Sec.279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. After thorough investigation, the police have filed the charge sheet against the driver of the Maruti car bearing Reg.No.KA-17-M-2286 for the offences punishable under Sec.337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. The contents of the police documents prima facie establishes the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the Maruti car.
17. The respondent No.2 has taken specific defence that, the accident has occurred on 11.08.2013, 13 SCCH-24 M.V.C.5977/2013 but the complaint and F.I.R. has been lodged on 12.08.2013. There is delay in lodging the complaint. Hence, it creates doubt regarding involvement of vehicle and alleged accident. R.W.1 the Assistant Manager of the respondent No.2 Company in his affidavit evidence has corroborated the contents of the written statement. R.W.1 has deposed that, in MLC extract issued by the Hospital authority, the vehicle numbers are not mentioned. So it creates doubts regarding involvement of the insured vehicle. In order to substantiate the said facts, R.W.1 has produced Ex.R.1 i.e., the MLC Extract.
18. It is pertinent to note that, the accident has occurred on 11.08.2013 at about 4.00 p.m. As per Ex.P.2 the petitioner has given complaint on 12.08.2013 and after receiving the complaint in the hospital, the police have registered the FIR on 12.08.2013. It shows that, the petitioner was under
14 SCCH-24 M.V.C.5977/2013 treatment in the hospital, and he was not in a position to lodge complaint on the same day of accident. The police documents clearly show that, the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-17-M-2286 by its driver. Ex.R.1 i.e., the MLC extract clearly shows the name of petitioner, date time and place of accident but there is no mention about the vehicle number. The said details are tallies with the contents of the police documents.
The respondent No.2 has not examined the investigating officer to show that, the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-17-M-2286 was not involved in the accident. Moreover the respondent No.2 has not made any attempt to examine the driver of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-17-M-2286 to show that there was no negligence on his part. The driver of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-17-M-2286 is the best witness to say about 15 SCCH-24 M.V.C.5977/2013 the negligence. In the absence of the rebuttal evidence, the version of P.W.1 is accepted.
19. The 2nd respondent has further taken defence that, the claim petition is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties, as the insurer and insured of the Bullet Motor Cycle bearing Reg.No. KA-01-ET-7587 are not made as parties. The police documents clearly shows that, there was negligence only on the part of the driver of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-17-M-2286 and there is no documents to show the negligence on the part of the petitioner. Hence, the owner and insurer of the Bullet Motor Cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-01-ET-7587 are not the necessary parties to the petition. Under these circumstances, the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the contents of the police documents establishes that the accident has caused solely due to rash and negligent driving of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-17-M-2286 by its driver.
16 SCCH-24 M.V.C.5977/2013
20. The petitioner has produced the wound certificate at Ex.P.4, which indicates that the petitioner had sustained injuries in the said accident. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has established the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-17-M-2286 and he has sustained injuries in the said accident. Accordingly, issue No.1 is answered in the Affirmative. Issue No.2:
21. The petitioner has sustained injuries in the said accident. He has relied upon Ex.P.4, i.e., the Wound Certificate issued by Apollo Hospitals, Bengaluru. Ex.P.4 reveals that the petitioner had sustained following injuries:
(1) Closed Fracture mid shaft right femur.
(2) Closed Fracture right let lower 1/3 tibia and Fibula.
17 SCCH-24 M.V.C.5977/2013 As per Ex.P.4 injuries are grievious in nature. There is no much dispute with regard to the injuries sustained by the petitioner. In view of the findings recorded on issue No.1, the petitioner has suffered injuries because of the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the car bearing Reg.No.KA-17-M-2286. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for the compensation.
22. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that, he was treated as an in-patient at Apollo Hospital, Bengaluru from 11.08.2013 to 18.08.2013 and he underwent surgery i.e., closed reduction internal fixation with intramedually interlocking nailing of right femur and right tibia. P.W.1, in his affidavit evidence deposed that, he has suffered closed fracture mid shaft right femur and closed fracture right leg lower 1/3 tibia and fibula. Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.8 are the two discharge summary issued by Apollo Hospital, Bengaluru. Ex.P.7 shows that, the petitioner has taken treatment as an 18 SCCH-24 M.V.C.5977/2013 inpatient from 11.08.2013 to 18.08.2013. Ex.P.8 shows that, the petitioner has taken treatment as an inpatient for one day. Taking into consideration of the gravity of injuries and duration of the treatment as an in-patient, out patient, I am of the considered opinion that, the petitioner has suffered severely due to the accidental injuries. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering.
23. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that, he has spent a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards medical, conveyance, food and nourishment and other incidental charges for the first time and he has spent a sum of Rs.40,000/- for medical treatment for the 2nd time. The petitioner has produced 22 medical bills at Ex.P.9 amounting to Rs.2,91,523=60. Taking into consideration of the nature of the injury and the treatment as in-patient and actual medical bills, I am of the opinion that, the 19 SCCH-24 M.V.C.5977/2013 petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.2,91,523/- towards Medical Expenses.
24. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that, immediately after the accident he was shifted to Apollo Hospital, Bengaluru, wherein he took treatment as an inpatient from 11.08.2013 to 18.08.2013. He has deposed that, further he was admitted to the Apollo Hospital for one day. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that, after discharge from the Hospital, he has taken follow up treatment as per the advise of the doctors at Apollo Hospital. Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.8 are the discharge summaries issued by Apollo Hospital, Bengaluru. Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.8 reveals that, the petitioner was inpatient from 11.08.2013 to 18.08.2013 on 20.08.2013. During all these period the petitioner must have spent money for food and nourishment. In this regard the petitioner has not placed any material evidence before this Tribunal. In the absence of documentary evidence and having 20 SCCH-24 M.V.C.5977/2013 regard to all these aspect, I am of the considered opinion that, the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards Food and Nourishment expenses.
25. It is stated in the petition as well as in the evidence that, immediately, after the accident the petitioner was shifted to Apollo Hospital, Bengaluru, wherein he took treatment as an in-patient at two instance. P.W.1 has deposed that, after discharge he took follow up treatment as per the advise of the doctors. In this regard the petitioner has not placed any material evidence before this Tribunal. The nature of injury necessitates the follow-up treatment. In the absence of documentary evidence and having regard to all these aspect, I am of the considered opinion that, the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards conveyance charges.
21 SCCH-24 M.V.C.5977/2013
26. It is the evidence of the petitioner that he has sustained grievous injuries in the accident and at the first instance he was admitted for a period of 8 days and at 2nd instance he was admitted and on the same day he was discharged from the said hospital due to heavy medical expenses. He has also taken follow-up treatment. The grievous nature of injury certainly made it inevitable for the petitioner to have an attendant. Having regard to all these facts, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards attendant charges.
27. The case of the petitioner is that, he was hale and healthy and aged about 45 years and was working as a Production Manager, at Origeal (P) Ltd., Harohalli Industrial Area and drawing a monthly salary of Rs.1,07,030/- per month. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that, after he met the accident, he was under bed rest 22 SCCH-24 M.V.C.5977/2013 for more than 4 months as per doctor's advise and he lost his salary for the said period. In order to substantiate the said facts, the petitioner has produced Ex.P.15 i.e., the leave certificate. Ex.P.15 reveals that, the petitioner was on medical leave from 11th August 2013 to 30th November 2013 and resumed back to work on 2nd December 2013. P.W.3 is the H.R. Manager of Origiean Pvt.Ltd. P.W.3 in his cross- examination deposed that, they have paid only salary but not any other allowances after termination and they have paid full salary upto 30.04.2014. The said evidence discloses that, the petitioner had drawn salary during treatment period. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for the compensation towards loss of income during the period of treatment.
28. It is the case of the petitioner that, he was working as a Production Manager, at Origeal (P) Ltd., Harohalli Industrial Area and drawing a monthly salary 23 SCCH-24 M.V.C.5977/2013 of Rs.1,07,030/- per month. P.W.1 has deposed that, the nature of job is supervision of entire production unit, wherein 220 members are involved in garment processing job. He has to supervise 220 members job continuously, which require full walking throughout 10 hours continuously without rest except lunch hour. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that, in view of the accident he become permanently crippled as he is not able to performance up to the required level. As such the management issued a letter dated:21.03.2014 calling upon him to an alternative suitable job elsewhere, but remained permanently unemployed and he acknowledge the same on 21.03.2014 and on 28.03.2014 by way of reply by expressing his inability to work continuously in Production department. P.W.1 has deposed that, he has tendered his resignation to relive from duty on 30.04.2014 and the Management accepted his resignation and relieved him on 24 SCCH-24 M.V.C.5977/2013 30.04.2014. Hence, he has lost his earnings. P.W.1 had produced Ex.P.11 i.e., the Salary Slip for the month of June-2013 and Ex.P.13 i.e., the Salary slip for the month of July-2013, Ex.P.13 i.e., the Bank Statement, Ex.P.14 i.e., the Copy of Form No.16, Ex.P.16 i.e., the Show Cause notice, Ex.P.17 i.e., the copy of Resignation Letter, Ex.P.18 i.e., the Acceptance of Resignation Letter.
29. The petitioner has examined P.W.3, the H.R. Manager, of Origiean Pvt. Ltd. During the course of cross-examination P.W.3 has denied the suggestion that, the petitioner has no difficulty to perform the supervising work and he has resigned the job not for the injuries sustained in the accident. P.W.3 has deposed that, they have paid only salary but they have not given any allowances after suspension.
30. It is pertinent to note that, as per the oral evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 and the documents 25 SCCH-24 M.V.C.5977/2013 produced by the petitioner makes it clear that, at the time of accident, the petitioner was working as a Production Manager, at Origeal (P) Ltd., Harohalli Industrial Area and drawing a gross salary of Rs.1,07,030/- per month. Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.12 clearly discloses that, the basic salary of the petitioner is Rs.31,515/- only. P.W.3 in his cross-examination deposed that, they have given only salary not any other allowances during suspension period. Ex.P.13 the Bank Statement does not shows the amount credited to the account of the petitioner. Moreover the petitioner was working in a private firm. Due to various reasons, there is possibility of variation of salary from time to time. Hence taking all these facts into consideration, I am of the opinion that, if the income of the petitioner is inferred at Rs.30,000/- per month, that would meet the ends of justice.
26 SCCH-24 M.V.C.5977/2013
31. It is the case of the petitioner that, due to accident injuries he has resigned the job and lost total salary. P.W.4 i.e., the Doctor, working as a Consultant Orthopedic Surgeon at S.J. Hospital has deposed that, the petitioner has suffered disability of 51% to the right lower limb and 28% to the whole body. During the course of cross-examination P.W.4 has deposed that, he has not treated the petitioner personally. Considering the nature of injury and the treatment taken and future treatment if the disability is taken at 15% to the whole body it would be both justifiable and appropriate. So there is loss of future income of Rs.4,500/-(Rs.30,000X15%) per month which comes to Rs.54,000/-per annum. In the cause title the age of the petitioner is shown as 45 years. The medical records discloses that, as on the date of accident the petitioner was aged about 45 years. Thus, the age of the petitioner is considered as 45 years at the time of 27 SCCH-24 M.V.C.5977/2013 accident. Hence, the proper multiplier is '14'. In the considered view of this Tribunal, the petitioner is entitled for a compensation of (Rs.4,500x12x14) Rs.7,56,000/- towards Loss of Future Earnings.
32. It is the evidence of P.W.4 that, the petitioner needs to undergo two more surgeries for removal of implants. The petitioner has not produced any bill or the estimation with regard to the future medical expenses. Hence, in the absence of the material evidence the petitioner is entitled for the compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards future medical expenses.
33. The injuries sustained by the petitioner shows that he must have sustained major pain and suffering. The accident has put him in a lot of discomfort and he has lost the amenities of life. Taking all these facts into consideration, the petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards 28 SCCH-24 M.V.C.5977/2013 Loss of Amenities of Life. Thus I am of the considered opinion that, it would be both fair and justifiable to award the compensation under the following heads :
1. Pain and suffering. : Rs. 25,000=00
2. Medical expenses. : Rs. 2,91,523=00
3. Food and Nourishment : Rs. 5,000=00 expenses.
4. Conveyance Charges. : Rs. 10,000=00
5. Attendant Charges. : Rs. 30,000=00
6. Loss of future earning : Rs. 7,56,000=00 (Rs.1,860x12x15)
7. Future Medical Expenses. Rs. 25,000=00
8. Loss of amenities of life. : Rs. 25,000=00 Total Rs.11,67,523=00 So, the petitioner is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.11,67,523/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty Three only) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition, till the date of realisation.
34. It is held supra by this Tribunal that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent
29 SCCH-24 M.V.C.5977/2013 driving of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-17-2286 by its driver. The 2nd respondent has also taken defence that, the driver of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-17M-2286 was not holding valid driving licence at the time of accident. The 2nd respondent has contended that, the owner of the offending vehicle has entrusted his vehicle to a person who did not having valid and effective driving licence. Hence, there is breach of terms and conditions of the policy. In order to substantiate the said fact, the 2nd respondent has not produced any material document. The petitioner has produced Ex.P.42 i.e., the driving licnece extract of the driver of the offending vehicle. Ex.P.42 reveals that, the driver of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-17-M-2286 is having valid driving licence at the time of accident to drive the said car. Hence, respondent No.1 being the owner and respondent No.2 being the insurer of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-17-2286 are jointly and severally liable to 30 SCCH-24 M.V.C.5977/2013 pay the compensation to the petitioner. Respondent No.2 shall indemnify the insured. Accordingly, issue No.2 is answered partly in the Affirmative. Issue No.3:
35. For the foregoing reasons and the discussions as stated above, the petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed in part with costs.
In result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The claim petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act by the petitioner is hereby allowed in part with costs.
The petitioner is awarded a total compensation of Rs.11,67,523/-
(Rupees Eleven Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty Three only) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum (Excluding future medical expenses of Rs.25,000/-) from the date of petition, till deposit. The Respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the 31 SCCH-24 M.V.C.5977/2013 compensation awarded in this case to the petitioner.
Respondent No.2 shall deposit the said compensation amount into the Tribunal within 30 days from the date of this order.
Out of the compensation amount 50% of award amount shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in the name of the petitioner in any of the Nationalised Bank or Schedule Bank for a period of 5 years. The remaining compensation amount with interest shall be disbursed to the petitioner. Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-. Draw Award Accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer online, typed by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 6th day of April, 2015).
(HIREMATH SHOBHARANI BABAYYA ) XXII ASCJ & MEMBER, MACT-Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of the Petitioner :
P.W.1 - Sri. H. Chandrappa.
P.W.2 - Sri. Veeramani.
P.W.3 - Sri. Harish. J.
P.W.4 - Dr. S. Rajanna.
32 SCCH-24
M.V.C.5977/2013
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Respondents:
R.W.1 - Sri. T. Thimmarayappa.
Documents marked on behalf of the Petitioner:
Ex.P.1 - Copy of First Information Report.
Ex.P.2 - Copy of Complaint.
Ex.P.3 - Copy of Charge Sheet.
Ex.P.4 - Copy of Wound Certificate.
Ex.P.5 - Copy of IMV Report.
Ex.P.6 - Copy of Mahazar.
Ex.P.7 & - Discharge summaries.
P.8
Ex.P.9 - 22-Medical bills.
Ex.P.10 - 11-Radiological reports.
Ex.P.11 - Salary Slips.
and P.12
Ex.P.13 - Bank Statement.
Ex.P.14 - Copy of Form No.16.
Ex.P.15 - Leave Letter.
Ex.P.16 - Show Cause Notice.
Ex.P.17 - Copy of Resignation Letter.
Ex.P.18 - Acceptance of Resignation Letter.
Ex.P.19 - Working Experience letter.
Ex.P.20 - Authorisation letter.
Ex.P.21 - Case sheet.
Ex.P.22 - Case sheet.
Ex.P.23 to - 11 X-rays.
P-33
Ex.P.34 - CT-Scan with reports.
Ex.P.35 - CT-Scan with reports.
Ex.P.36 - Authorisation letter.
Ex.P.37 - Recent clinical examination report.
33 SCCH-24
M.V.C.5977/2013
Ex.P.38 to - 3 X-rays.
P.40
Ex.P.41 - B-Register Extract.
Ex.P.42 - Extract of the Driving Licence.
Documents marked on behalf of the Respondents:
Ex.R.1 - Copy of Medico Legal Register. Ex.R.2 - Copy of Insurance policy.
(HIREMATH SHOBHARANI BABAYYA ) XXII ASCJ & MEMBER, MACT-Bengaluru.
34 SCCH-24 M.V.C.5977/2013 AWARD BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA & XXII A.S.C.J, BENGALURU CITY M.V.C.No.5977/2013 Petitioner : Sri. H. Chandrappa, S/o Hemlanaik, Aged 45 years, Residing at:
No.502A, Amoda Valmark Apartments, Doddakannanahalli, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore-560083.
(Reptd.: By Smt. Radhika. B-
Advocate- Bengaluru).
- Versus -
Respondents : 1. Sri. V. Srinivas, S/o Venkataramasetty, No.607, Behind IPP Hospital, Hanumanthanagar, Kanakapura Town, Ramanagar District.
2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., RVR Complex, Behind KSRTC Bus stand, Ijoor, Ramanagaram, Ramanagar District.
35 SCCH-24 M.V.C.5977/2013 (Res.No.1: By Sri. M. Subramanya, Advocate- Bengaluru).
Res.No.2: By Sri. D.N. Manjunatha Gupta Advocate- Bengaluru).
WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the Claimant/s above named U/Sec.166 of the M.V.Act, praying for the compensation of Rs.
(Rupees Only) for the injuries sustained by the Claimant/Death of In a Motor Accident by Vehicle NO.
WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before Smt. HIREMATH SHOBHARANI BABAYYA XXII A.S.C.J, Member, MACT, Bengaluru in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for Claimant/s and of Sri.Smt. Advocate for respondent.
ORDER The claim petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act by the petitioner is hereby allowed in part with costs.
The petitioner is awarded a total compensation of Rs.11,67,523/-
(Rupees Eleven Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty Three only) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum (Excluding future 36 SCCH-24 M.V.C.5977/2013 medical expenses of Rs.25,000/-) from the date of petition, till deposit. The Respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation awarded in this case to the petitioner.
Respondent No.2 shall deposit the said compensation amount into the Tribunal within 30 days from the date of this order.
Out of the compensation amount 50% of award amount shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in the name of the petitioner in any of the Nationalised Bank or Schedule Bank for a period of 5 years. The remaining compensation amount with interest shall be disbursed to the petitioner. Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-. Draw Award Accordingly.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day
of 2015.
MEMBER
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN
AREA, BENGALURU.
37 SCCH-24
M.V.C.5977/2013
By the
Court fee paid on Claimant /s Respondent
petition 10.00
Court fee paid on
process 00.00
Pleaders Fee
Total RS.
Decree Drafted Scrutinised by MEMBER
MACT, METROPOLITAN AREA
BENGALURU
Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR
38 SCCH-24
M.V.C.5977/2013
Judgment pronounced in open court (Vide separate Judgment) ORDER The claim petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act by the petitioner is hereby allowed in part with costs.
The petitioner is awarded a total compensation of Rs.11,67,523/-
(Rupees Eleven Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty Three only) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum (Excluding future medical expenses of Rs.25,000/-) from the date of petition, till deposit. The Respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation awarded in this case to the petitioner.
Respondent No.2 shall deposit the said compensation amount into the Tribunal within 30 days from the date of this order.
Out of the compensation amount 50% shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in the name of the petitioner in any of the Nationalised Bank or Schedule Bank for a period of 5 years. The remaining compensation 39 SCCH-24 M.V.C.5977/2013 amount with interest shall be disbursed to the petitioner.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-. Draw Award Accordingly.
XXII ASCJ & MEMBER, MACT-Bengaluru.