Bangalore District Court
) Saraswathamma @ Sarasamma vs ) Mrs.Rathnamma on 6 January, 2015
BEFORE THE MEMBER PRL.M.A.C.T., BANGALORE
PRESENT : SRI H.P.SANDESH, B.A.L, LL.B.,
MEMBER, PRL.M.A.C.T
DATED: 6th January'2015
M.V.C.No.7340/2011, 7557/2011 and 1151/2012 to
1153/2012
PARTIES IN MVC No.7340/2011
Petitioners 1) Saraswathamma @ Sarasamma,
W/o.Late Anjinappa,
Age 45 years,
2) Ashoka A.,
S/o.Late Anjinappa,
Aged 22 years,
3) Sudha,
D/o.Late Anjinappa,
Age 12 years,
4) Suma,
D/o.Late Anjinappa,
Age 11 years,
Petitioners No.3 and 4 is being minor natural
guardian Mother Petitioner No.1 represent on
behalf of them
Presently residing at:-
Chamundinagar,
R.T.Nagar Post,
Bangalore - 32.
Permanent Address:
Huladenahalli, Haikal Hobli,
Malur Taluk.
(Represented by Sri V.Dinesh Kumar,
Advocate)
2
Vs.
Respondents 1) Mrs.Rathnamma,
W/o.Late P.A.Sathyanarayana,
D.No.103, Gadipalayam Mathigiri,
HCF Post, Hosur,
Krishnagiri Dist,
Tamil Nadu.
(Owner of the Vehicle No.TN.29/W.92025)
2) The Manager (Legal),
United India Insurance Co., Ltd.,
No.40, Lakshmi Complex,
K.R.Road,
Bangalore 560 002.
(Policy No.171000/31/10/01/00008593,
valid from 14.03.2011 to 13.03.2012)
Respondent No.1 is Exparte
Respondent No.2 by Sri B.Arun Kumar,
Advocate
PARTIES IN MVC No.7557/2011
Petitioner Smt.Nanjamma,
W/o.Manjunath,
Aged about 28 years,
Permanent resident of
Karahalli Village,
Channakathur Post,
Krishnagiri Taluk & District,
Tamilnadu,
Presently residing at
No.1060, Weavers Colony,
Bannerghatta Main Road,
Bangalore - 83.
(Represented by Sri N.Manjunath, Advocate)
Vs.
Respondents 3) Mrs.Rathnamma,
W/o.P.A.Sathyanarayana,
3
Major by age,
Sri Ranga Vilas Motors,
Hosur Cattle Farm Post,
Hosur,
Dharmapuri District,
Tamilnadu.
4) The United India Insurance Co., Ltd.,
Regional Office,
5th Floor, Krushi Bhavana,
Nrupathunga Road,
Hudson Circle,
Bangalore 560 011.
Respondent No.1 by - Exparte
Respondent No.2 by Sri B.Arun Kumar,
Advocate
PARTIES IN MVC No.1151/2012
Petitioner Sri Venkatesh,
S/o.Marappa,
Aged about 30 years,
R/o.Bingipura Village,
Araleri Post,
Malur Taluk,
Kolar District.
(Represented by Sri T.V.Ramesh, Advocate)
Vs.
Respondents 1) Mrs.Rathnamma, Major,
W/o.Late P.A.Sathyanarayana,
Proprietor of M/s.Ranga Vilas Motors,
Door No.103, Gadipalyam Mattigiri,
HCF Post, Hosur Taluk,
Krishnagiri Dist,
Tamil Nadu 635 110.
2) The United India Insurance Co., Ltd.,
Regional Office,
No.18, Krishibhavana,
Opp:Hudson Circle,
4
Nrupathunga Road,
Bangalore - 01.
Respondent No.1 by - Exparte
Respondent No.2 by Sri B.Arun Kumar,
Advocate
PARTIES IN MVC No.1152/2012
Petitioner Sri Vinod Raj,
S/o.Narayanaraj,
Aged about 22 years,
R/o.Doddashivara Village,
Doddakadathur Post,
Malur Taluk,
Kolar District.
(Represented by Sri T.V.Ramesh, Advocate)
Vs.
Respondents 1) Mrs.Rathnamma, Major,
W/o.Late P.A.Sathyanarayana,
Proprietor of M/s.Ranga Vilas Motors,
Door No.103, Gadipalyam Mattigiri,
HCF Post, Hosur Taluk,
Krishnagiri Dist,
Tamil Nadu 635 110.
2) The United India Insurance Co., Ltd.,
Regional Office,
No.18, Krishibhavana,
Opp:Hudson Circle,
Nrupathunga Road,
Bangalore - 01.
Respondent No.1 by - Exparte
Respondent No.2 by Sri B.Arun Kumar,
Advocate
PARTIES IN MVC No.1153/2012
Petitioner Smt.Ammayamma,
W/o.Gopalaraju,
Aged avout 35 years,
5
R/o.Doddashivara Village,
Doddakadathur Post,
Malur Taluk,
Kolar District.
(Represented by Sri T.V.Ramesh, Advocate)
Vs.
Respondents 1) Mrs.Rathnamma, Major,
W/o.Late P.A.Sathyanarayana,
Proprietor of M/s.Ranga Vilas Motors,
Door No.103, Gadipalyam Mattigiri,
HCF Post, Hosur Taluk,
Krishnagiri Dist,
Tamil Nadu 635 110.
2) The United India Insurance Co., Ltd.,
Regional Office,
No.18, Krishibhavana,
Opp:Hudson Circle,
Nrupathunga Road,
Bangalore - 01.
Respondent No.1 by - Exparte
Respondent No.2 by Sri B.Arun Kumar,
Advocate
COMMON JUDGMENT
All these petitions are arising out of the same accident and
therefore, they are disposed of by this common judgment.
2. MVC No.7340/2011 has been filed the petitioners
claiming compensation of Rs.15 lakhs from the respondents 1
and 2 jointly and severally, ie., the owner and the insurer of the
bus bearing registration No.TN.29/W.9225, for the death of
Venkatachalapathi in the motor vehicle accident that occurred
on 13.09.2011.
6
3. MVC No.7557/2011 has been filed the petitioner claiming
compensation of Rs.5 lakhs from the respondents 1 and 2
jointly and severally, ie., the owner and the insurer of the bus
bearing registration No.TN.29/W.9225 fpr the injuries suffered
by the petitioner in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on
13.09.2011.
4. MVC No.1151/2012 has been filed the petitioner claiming
compensation of Rs.10 lakhs from the respondents 1 and 2
jointly and severally, ie., the owner and the insurer of the bus
bearing registration No.TN.29/W.9225, on account of the
injured suffered by the petitioner in the motor vehicle accident
that occurred on 13.09.2011.
5. MVC No.1152/2012 has been filed the petitioner claiming
compensation of Rs.6 lakhs from the respondents 1 and 2
jointly and severally, ie., the owner and the insurer of the bus
bearing registration No.TN.29/W.9225 on account of the
injured suffered by the petitioner in the motor vehicle accident
that occurred on 13.09.2011.
6. MVC No.1153/2012 has been filed the petitioner claiming
compensation of Rs.1 lakh from the respondents 1 and 2 jointly
and severally, ie., the owner and the insurer of the bus bearing
registration No.TN.29/W.9225, on account of the injured
suffered by the petitioner in the motor vehicle accident that
occurred on 13.09.2011.
7. Brief facts of the case are that:- On 13.09.2011, at about
2.30 pm., the petitioners of MVC No.1151/2012 to 1153/2012
and MVC No.7557/2011 were traveling as passengers in bus
7
registration No.TN.29/W.9225. The said was proceeding from
Hosur to Malur. When the said bus reached near Industrial
Area, Malur, the driver of the said bus driven the same in rash
and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and safety
of others and thereby lost control over his vehicle and violently
dashed against the motorcycle bearing No.KA.08/L.2440 driven
by deceased Venkatachalapathi, the son and brother of
petitioners in MVC No.7340/2011 at the first instance and then,
dashed the bus against a road side tree. As a result of the
accident, the petitioners of MVC No.7557/2011 and 1151/2012
to 1153/2012 sustained grievous injuries and they were shifted
to various hospital for treatment and the respective petitioners
have spent substantial amount for treatment and inspite of best
treatment given to them, they suffered permanently disability
and thereby lost their future income. The rider of the
Motorcycle Venkatachalapathi, against which the bus dashed,
succumbed to the injuries at the spot.
8. It is the case of the petitioners in all the petitions that the
accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of
the bus by its driver and the Police have registered the case
against the driver of the bus.
9. It is contended that the bus, which caused the accident
was owned by the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.2 is
the insurer of the same and hence, both are jointly and severally
liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
10. Pursuant to filing of these petitions, notice was issued to
both the respondents. Respondent No.1 in all the petitions, who
is the owner of the bus, did not appear and hence, she has been
8
placed exparte. The respondent No.2, the insurer of the bus
appeared through its counsel and filed statement of objections.
11. The second respondent in its reply, which is common in
all the petitions, contended that the offending vehicle was
insured with the second respondent. However, the liability of
the second respondent is subject to terms and conditions of the
policy and the driver of the bus holding a valid and effective
driving license.
12. Without prejudice to the above contentions, the
respondent No.2 denied that on 13.09.2011 at about 2.30 pm.,
the petitioners in MVC No.7340/2011 and MVC No.1151/2012
to 1153/2012 were traveling in the bus and that the deceased
Venkatachalapachi was riding the motorcycle at the spot of
accident and that the driver of the bus having driven the same
in rash and negligent manner, dashed at the first instance
against the motorcycle of Venkatachalapathi and then to a road
side tree and thereby caused the accident and in the accident,
the petitioners in MVC No.7557/2011 and MVC No.1151/2012
to 1153/2012 sustained injuries which resulted in permanent
disablement to them and further the rider of motorcycle ie.,
Venkatachalapathi died on the spot on account of the injuries
suffered by him in the accident. It is denied that the alleged
accident occurred in the manner as stated in the petition and
that the respondent No.2 also denied that the insured vehicle
was involved in the accident. It is contended that the
petitioners have to prove the alleged accident. It is further
contended that the driver of the bus was not having a valid and
effective driving license to drive the bus. It is contended that the
accident has occurred purely on account of the rash and
9
negligent riding of the motorcycle by deceased
Venkatachalapathi and therefore, the respondent No.2 is not
liable to indemnify respondent No.1. It is further contended
that the petitions are bad for mis joinder of necessary parties
and non-joinder of the necessary parties, since the owner and
insurer of the motorcycle on which deceased Venkatachalapathi
was traveling, have not been impleaded as parties. The
respondent No.2 has also contended that it may be permitted to
contest the petitions on behalf of the owner under Section 170
of the MV Act. Further, the respondent No.2 has denied all the
material averments made out in the claim petition, such as
nature of injuries, period of treatment, expenditure incurred,
disability said to have been suffered by the petitioners,
avocation of the petitioners, their monthly income etc., etc., not
only with regard the petitioners of MVC No.7340/2011 and
1151/2012 to 1153/2012 but also that of the deceased
Venkatachalapthi and further denied the negligence attributed
to the driver of the bus. It is contended that the amount of
compensation claimed by the petitioners' is exorbitant and not
based on any norms. Since none of the petitioners are residing
within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, all the petitions deserve
to be dismissed. Further, it is contended that the bus was being
driven without valid permit and fitness certificate and thereby,
the respondent No.2 is not liable to indemnify the respondent
No.1. Hence, for all these reasons, the second respondent has
sought for dismissal of both the petitions.
13. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were
framed:-
10
MVC No.7340/2011
1) Whether the petitioners prove that on 13.09.2011 at
about 2.30 pm., when the deceased Venkatachalapathi
was riding the Motor Cycle on Malur-Hosur Road, near
Malur Industrial Area, at that time, the private bus
beariong No.TN.29/W.9225 came at high speed in a
rash and negligent manner and dashed against the
deceased motorcycle, as a result of which, he died as
alleged?
2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation?
If so, at what amount and from whom?
3) What order or decree?
MVC No.7557/2011
1) Whether the petitioner proves that the accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus
bearing Reg.No.TN.29/W.9225 by its driver and in the
said accident, the petitioner sustained injuries?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If
so, how much and from whom?
3) What order or award?
MVC No.1151/2012 to 1153/2012
1) Whether the petitioner proves that he sustained
grievous injuries in a motor vehicle accident that
occurred on 13.09.2011 at about 2.30 pm., near
Industrial Area, on Malur-Hosur Road, Malur Taluk,
Kolar Dist., on account of rash and negligent driving of
the bus bearing registration No.TN.29/W.9225 by its
driver?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If
so, how much and from whom?
3) What order?
11
14. In order to prove their case, the petitioner No.1 in
MVC No.7340/2011 got herself examined as PW 1 and through
her evidence, Exhibit P.1 to P.9 are got marked.
15. On behalf of the second respondent, two witnesses
are examined as RW 1 and RW 2 and 2 documents are got
marked.
16. In order to prove his case, the petitioner in MVC
No.7557/2011 got himself examined as PW 1 and through his
evidence, Exhibit P.1 to P.10 are got marked. The petitioner
has also examined the doctor as PW 2 and through him,
Exhibits P.11 to P.14 are got marked.
17. On behalf of the second respondent, two witnesses
are examined as RW 1 and RW 2 and 5 documents are got
marked through them.
18. As far as MVC No.1151/2012 to 1153/2012 are
concerned, the petitioner in MVC No.1151/2011 got himself
examined as PW 1, the petitioner in MVC No.1152/2012 got
himself examined as PW 2 and the petitioner in MVC
No.1153/2012 got herself examined as PW 3. The petitioners in
MVC No.1151/2012 and 1152/2012 got examined the doctor as
PW 4. On behalf of the petitioner, Exhibits P.1 to P.16 are got
marked.
19. On behalf of the second respondent, one witness
was examined as RW 1 and 5 documents are got marked
through him.
12
20. Heard the arguments of the petitioners' counsel and
also that of the counsel for respondent No.2.
21. Having perused the pleadings of the parties,
evidence led by both sides, material available on record, and
upon going the oral arguments of the petitioners' counsel and
the counsel for respondent No.2, my findings on the above
issues, in all the petitions, are as under:-
1) In the affirmative,
2) Partly in the affirmative,
3) As per final order, for the following:-
REASONS
22. Issue No.1 in all the cases:- Since all these claim
petitions are arising out of the same accident and issue No.1 in
all the petitions is regarding the negligence, they are taken up
together for discussion.
23. All the petitions are filed under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 and therefore, it is incumbent upon the
petitioners to prove the negligence on the part of the driver of
the bus bearing No.TN.29/W.9225 in occurrence of the
accident.
24. As stated above, the petitioner No.1 in MVC
No.7340/2011 and the petitioner in MVC No.7557/2011 have
been examined as PW 1 in their respective cases, whereas the
petitioners in MVC No.1151/2012 to 1153/2012 have been
examined as PW 1 to PW 3 respectively. It is the case of
petitioners in MVC No.7757/2011 and MVC No.1151/2012 to
13
1153/2012 that they were traveling in bus bearing registration
No.TN.29/W.9225 from Hosur to Malur on 13.09.2011 and at
about 2.30 pm., and when the said bus came near Industrial
Town Malur, the driver of the bus drove the same in rash and
negligent manner and, at the first instance, dashed against a
motorcycle which was coming from opposite direction causing
the death of Venkatachalapathi, the rider of motorcycle and
thereafter, dashed against a roadside tree and thus, the
petitioners in MVC No.7557/2011 and MVC No.1151/2012 to
1153/2012 have suffered injuries. Further, apart from their
oral evidence, the petitioners have also produced the copy of the
FIR, Charge Sheet, Spot Mahazar, IMV Report, Wound
Certificates of the injured petitioners and the Post Mortem
Report of deceased Venkatachalapathi. These documents have
been marked in these petitions as Exhibits Ex.P.1 to P.5
invariably.
25. From a perusal of FIR which is marked as Ex.P.1 in all
these cases, it is clear that the complaint is lodged by one
Narayanaswamy, an inmate of the bus, according to him, the
accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving
of the bus, in as much as, the bus dashed against the rider of
the motorcycle causing the death of the rider of the motorcycle
at the spot and then dashed against a roadside tree, on account
of which, inmates of the bus suffered injuries. Ex.P.2 is the
charge sheet filed against the driver of the bus for offence under
Section 279, 337, 338, 304(A) of IPC after investigation by the
Police. Ex.P.3 is the Spot Panchanama. Ex.P.4 is the IMV
Report of the bus as well as the motorcycle.
14
26. All these witnesses have been cross-examined by the counsel
for the respondent No.2. During the course of the cross
examination of witnesses in MVC No.7557/2011 and 1151/2012
to 1153/2012, it is elicited that they were traveling in the bus from
Hosur to Malur. It is further elicited from them that they obtained
the bus ticket on that day and that they lost the bus ticket in the
accident. They have denied the suggestion that they never traveled
in the said bus and also denied the suggestion that they have not
sustained injuries in the accident.
27. In MVC No.7340/2011, it is elicited from PW 1 that at the
time of accident, she had been to work and that she did not
witness the accident and further elicited that she does not know as
to who is the owner of the motorcycle driven by her son at the time
of the accident. Thus from the evidence of PW 1 in MVC
No.7304/2011, it is evident that she is not an eye witness to the
accident.
28. However, the evidence of petitioners in MVC No.7557/2012
and MVC No.1151/2012 to 1153/2012, who were traveling in the
bus at the time of accident coupled with the FIR, Chargesheet,
Spot Mahazar and IMV Report, as discussed above, clearly reveal
that the accident has occurred on account of the rash and
negligent driving of the bus by its driver.
29. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent
No.2 that the accident has not occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the bus by its driver and on the contrary, the
accident has occurred due to the negligence of the deceased, who
was riding the motorcycle. Even though such a contention is
taken up by the respondent No.2, the respondent No.2 has not
examined the driver of the bus, who was the right person to speak
15
as to how exactly the accident has occurred. In the absence of any
contra evidence, more particularly the evidence of the driver of the
bus, this Court cannot come to the conclusion that the accident
has occurred on account of the negligence on the part of deceased
Venkatachalapathi. Hence, I hold that the accident has occurred
on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus
No.TN.29/W.9225 by its driver and in the accident, the petitioners
in MVC No.7557/2011 and MVC No.1151/2012 to 1153/2012
have suffered injuries and Venkatachalapathi, the rider of the
motorcycle (MVC No.7340/2011) succumbed to the injuries.
Accordingly, issue No.1 in all the cases are answered in the
affirmative.
30. Issue No.2 in MVC No.7340/2011:- The petitioners in
MVC No.7340/2011 are the mother and brother and sisters of the
deceased Venkatachalapathi, who died in the accident.
31. In a case of death, in order to arrive at the compensation to
be awarded to the petitioners, the age, avocation, income of the
deceased and the number of dependants, plays vital role.
32. In the case on hand, it is pleaded by the petitioners in MVC
No.7340/2011, who are the mother, brother and sisters of
deceased Venkatachalapathi that the deceased was aged 20 years
at the time of accident and doing mason work and earning
Rs.5,000/- per month and that he was the only earning member in
the family and he was contributing his entire income for the
maintenance of the family. The petitioner No.1 in MVC 7340/2011
has been examined as PW1, who in her evidence, reiterated the
averments of the petition.
16
33. In order to substantiate their case regarding the avocation
and income of the deceased, the petitioners have not produced any
document and they are entirely depending upon the oral evidence
of PW 1.
34. PW1 has been subjected to cross-examination, wherein it is
suggested to her that his son was neither working as mason nor he
was earning at Rs.500/- per day and the said suggestion has been
denied by her. It is elicited from her that her son was bachelor and
that her son was aged 20 years. However, she admits that he has
no document to prove the age of her son.
35. Now, let me consider the material on record to consider as to
whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation. It is
important to note that the petitioners are the mother, minor
brother and sisters of deceased. This is evident from Ex.P.9, copy
of the ration card produced by petitioners.
36. Now the question before the Tribunal is as to what is the
quantum of compensation to which the petitioners in MVC
No.7340/2011 are entitled for the death of Venkatachalapathi in
the accident. The petitioners pleaded that the deceased was
working as mason and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. But the
said fact remains as pleading only, without any proof, as the
petitioners have not produced any document in support of the said
claim. However, the fact remains that the deceased was aged 20
years at the time of accident which is evident from the PM Report
Ex.P.3, which fact has not been disputed by the respondents.
Considering the age of the deceased and in the absence of any
proof regarding his income, I deem it just and proper to take the
income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month.
17
37. Apart from that, in view of the principles liaddown in the
judgment reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 (Rajesh Vs. Rajbir Singh), the
Apex Court held that even if a person is self employed, loss of
future prospects has to be taken into consideration and hence, as
the deceased was aged 20 years at the time of accident, 50%, from
out of his income, has to be taken as loss of future prospects,
which works out to Rs.2,500/- and thus the total works out to
Rs.7500/-.
38. As per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2012
ACJ 2002 (Amrit Bhanu Shali & Ors Vs. National Insurance Co.,
Ltd.,) 1/3rd out of the total income of the deceased has to be
deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased, had he
been alive. If that be so, the monthly loss of dependency works out
to Rs.5,000/- and annually, it works out to Rs.60,000/-. The
same has to be multiplied by 18 multiplier, having regard to the
age of the deceased as 20 years and therefore, the total loss of
dependency works out to Rs.10,80,000/-.
39. Apart from that, the petitioners are also held to be entitled to
Rs.50,000/- under the head compensation to the family members
(family members other than wife) for loss of love and affection,
deprivation of protection, social security etc., and Rs.10,000/-
towards cost incurred on account of funeral and ritual expenses,
as held in the recent judgment reported in AIR 2014 SUPREME
COURT 706 (Puttamma Vs. Narayana Reddy).
40. Thus the petitioners are entitled to compensation as under:-
Sl.No. Heads of Compensation Amount of
Compensation
1. Loss of dependency 10,80,000.00
2. Compensation to the family 50,000.00
18
members ( family members other
than wife) for loss of love and
affection, deprivation of protection,
social security
3. Cost incurred on account of funeral 10,000.00
and ritual expenses,
Total 11,40,000.00
41. Issue No.2 in MVC No.7557/2011:- The petitioner MVC
No.7557/2011 has been examined as PW 1. Her evidence would
go to show that she sustained injuries in the accident and
immediately after the accident, she was shifted to SNR Hospital,
Kolar and after first aid treatment, she was shifted to Sri Gaurav
Orthopedic and Surgical Hospital, Kolar for better treatment and
she was treated there as inpatient. The petitioner has produced
Ex.P.5 Wound Certificate issued by Government Hospital,
Malur, perusal of which shows that the petitioner has suffered
tenderness on left foot, suspected fracture, referred to higher
center, and the opinion received from the Higher Center revealed
closed fracture of left subtolar joint with fracture of left talus.
The petitioner has also produced Ex.P.6 Discharge Summary
issued by Sri Gaurav Orthopaedic and Surgical Hospital, Kolar,
which shows that the petitioner was treated as inpatient from
13.09.2011 to 17.09.2011. During the said period, the
petitioner underwent open reduction and internal fixation. At
the time of advise, she was walking with walker and she was
advised non weight bearing crutch walking and to continue
BKPOP slab. Thus, for having taken note of the grievous injury
suffered by petitioner ie., closed fracture dislocation of left
subtalar joint with fracture of left talus without distal NU deficit,
I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for
19
compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head pain and
suffering.
42. So far as medical expenses are concerned, as per Ex.P.8
Series, the petitioner has produced as many as 34 medical bills
amounting to Rs.46,988/-. I have gone through the bills
produced by the petitioner. Further, the accident has occurred
near Malur and she was treated at Kolar as inpatient for 5 days.
Considering the gravity of the injury and the period of
treatment, the petitioner has been awarded Rs.52,000/- under
the head medical expenses, attendant charges, conveyance
charges and other incidental expenses.
43. t is the case of petitioner that she was aged 28 years and
doing coolie work apart from household work and thereby
earning Rs.6,000/- per month. Petitioner went on record to
depose that during the period of treatment, she suffered loss of
income. So far as age is concerned, the petitioner has not
produced any documentary evidence thereby the Tribunal has
to rely on medical records to assess the age of the petitioner. In
this regard, if we peruse Ex.P.13 Admission Record issued by
Gaurav Orthopedic and Surgical Hospital, it shows the age of
the petitioner as 30 years. In the cross-examination of
petitioner, though an attempt is made to show that she was
running 50 years at the time of accident, but the said
suggestion has been denied by her. Thus, the age of the
petitioner is taken as 30 years at the time of accident.
44. So far as avocation and income is concerned, the
petitioner has stated in the petition that she was doing coolie
work apart from household work and deriving an income of
20
Rs.6,000/- per month. But in order to substantiate the nature
of avocation and income, the petitioner has not produced any
documentary evidence. In her cross-examination, it is
suggested to her that she was not working as coolie and earning
Rs.6,000/- per month, and the said suggestion has been denied
by her. In the absence of any proof regarding the avocation and
income, considering the age of the petitioner as 30 years at the
time of accident, I deem it just and proper to take her income as
Rs.4,500/- per month.
45. As discussed above and as per the medical records, it is
clear that the petitioner has suffered closed fracture dislocation
of left subtalar joint with fracture of left talus with out distal NU
deficit, which in my opinion, rendered the petitioner incapable
to do her job, at least for 3 months, which has to be
compensated under the head loss of income during the period of
treatment and accordingly, the petitioner has been awarded
Rs.13,500/- under the head loss of income during treatment for
3 months.
46. The evidence of the petitioner would go to show that she
suffered closed fracture dislocation of left subtalar joint with
fracture of left talus with out distal NU deficit and based on the
said injury, the petitioner contends that she has suffered
disability, which rendered her incapable to earn her livelihood in
future. As far as injuries suffered by petitioner are concerned,
the contents of Wound Certificate Ex.P.5 and Discharge
Summary Ex.P.6 reiterate the same. But that is not sufficient to
come to the conclusion that the petitioner has suffered disability
on account of injuries suffered by him in the accident. In that
regard, the petitioner has examined PW 2 Dr.Imran Hussain,
21
Orthopedic Surgeon at R.L.Jalappa Hospital, Kolar to speak
about the disability suffered by her. PW 2, in his evidence has
clearly deposed about the nature of injuries suffered by
petitioner, nature of treatment administered to her and after
considering the effect of injuries, both clinically and
radiologically, assessed the total disability at 40% to the left
lower limb and 20% to the whole body. PW 2 in his cross-
examination has stated that himself and one Dr.Devaraj have
conducted the operation and he was assisting Dr.Devaraj and
his name is not reflected in the Discharge Summary. He further
admits that he has not produced any document to show that he
is the Consultant in Gaurav Hospital,Kolar. Thus, if we
critically analyse the evidence of PW 2, the percentage of
disability at 20% to the whole body stated by PW 2 appears to
be on the higher side and hence the same is not accepted and I
deem it just and proper to take the disability to whole body at
13%. In that event, the petitioner is entitled to compensation
under the head disability as under:-
47. Income of the petitioner is taken as Rs.4,500/-. 13% of
which comes to Rs.585/- and annually, it comes to Rs.7,020/-.
Since the age of the petitioner was 30 years at the time of
accident, by applying 17 multiplier, the petitioner is held to be
entitled to a compensation under the head disability comes to
Rs.1,19,340/-.
48. Since the petitioner has suffered closed fracture
dislocation of left subtalar joint with fracture of left talus with
out distal NU deficit and even she has to bear the brunt of the
same throughout her life and hence, I deem it just and proper to
award Rs.30,000/- under the head loss of amenities in life.
22
49. The petitioner has suffered closed fracture dislocation of
left subtalar joint with fracture of left talus with out distal NU
deficit and underwent open reduction internal fixation. This is
evident from the medical records as well as the evidence of PW
2. In this regard, PW 2 has deposed that the petitioner has to
undergo one more surgery for bony fusion of ankle costing
Rs.60,000/-. PW 2 denied the suggestion in his cross-
examination that the future medical expenses stated by him is
on higher side, but the fact remains that the petitioner has
suffered open reduction internal fixation, apart from removal of
implants, the petitioner has to undergo another surgery for bony
fusion, however, the amount of Rs.60,000/- towards future
medical expenses appears to be on higher side and hence, I
deem it just and proper to award Rs.40,000/- under the head
future medical expenses..
50. Thus, the petitioner has been awarded compensation
under various heads as under:-
Sl.No. Head of compensation Amount
Rs.
1. Injury, pain and suffering 40,000.00
2. Medical expenses, attendant, 52,000.00
conveyance and other incidental
expenses
3. Loss of income during treatment 13,500.00
4. Loss of earning capacity on account 1,19,340.00
of disability
5. Loss of amenities in life 30,000.00
6. Future Medical Expenses 40,000.00
Total 2,94,840.00
Accordingly issue No.2 in MVC No.7557/2011 is answered.
23
51. Issue No.2 in MVC No.1151/2012:- Petitioner in MVC
No.1151/2012 has been examined as PW 1. His evidence would
go to show that he sustained injuries in the accident and
immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Government
Hospital, Malur and after first aid treatment, he was shifted to
District SNR Hospital, Kolar for better treatment and he was
treated there as inpatient from 13.09.2011 to 02.11.2011 for 50
days. The petitioner has produced Ex.P.5 Wound Certificate
issued by Government Hospital, Malur perusal of which shows
that he has suffered fracture suspected on left hand and left leg,
referred to SNR Ortho Opinion. The petitioner has also
produced Discharge Summary marked as Ex.P.6 issued by
A.P.Vaidya Vidhana Parishad marked as Ex.P.10. The petitioner
SNR District Hospital, Kolar, which shows that the petitioner
was admitted as inpatient on 13.09.2011 and discharged on
02.11.2011 and that the petitioner underwent surgery for
compound comminuted fracture of both bones of left leg with
external fixator and POP plaster has been applied for fracture of
ulna distal 1/3rd. Thus, for having taken note of the grievous
injuries suffered by petitioner ie., compound comminuted
fracture of both bones of left leg and fracture of ulna distal
1/3rd, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for
compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head pain and
suffering.
52. So far as medical expenses are concerned, as per Ex.P.8
Series, the petitioner has produced as many as 16 medical bills
amounting to Rs.14,856/-. I have gone through the bills
produced by the petitioner. Further, the accident has occurred
near Malur and he was treated at District SNR Hospital, Kolar
as inpatient for 50 days. Considering the gravity of the injuries
24
and the period of treatment, the petitioner has been awarded
Rs.25,000/- under the head medical expenses, attendant
charges, conveyance charges and other incidental expenses.
53. It is the case of petitioner that he was aged 30 years and
doing mason work. Petitioner went on record to depose that
during the period of treatment and during the period of rest, he
had to engage some one to attend to him. So far as age is
concerned, the petitioner has not produced any documentary
evidence thereby the Tribunal has to rely on medical records to
assess the age of the petitioner. In this regard, if we peruse
Ex.P.6 Discharge Summary, it shows the age of the petitioner as
30 years. Thus, the age of the petitioner is taken as 30 years at
the time of accident.
54. So far as avocation and income of the petitioner is
concerned, the petitioner has stated that he was earning
Rs.9000/- per month by doing mason work, but the said fact
has not been proved by placing on record cogent evidence.
Thus, considering the age of the petitioner as 30 years, I deem it
just and proper to take his income as Rs.5,000/- per month.
55. As discussed above and as per the medical records, it is
clear that the petitioner has suffered two fractures and he was
inpatient for 50 days, which in my opinion, rendered the
petitioner incapable to do his job, at least for 4 months, which
has to be compensated under the head loss of income during
the period of treatment and accordingly, the petitioner has been
awarded Rs.20,000/- under the head loss of income during
treatment for 4 months.
25
56. The evidence of the petitioner would go to show that he
suffered compound comminuted fracture of both bones of left
leg and fracture of ulna distal 1/3rd and based on the said
injuries, the petitioner contends that he has suffered disability,
which rendered him incapable to continue his avocation as
mason. As far as injuries suffered by petitioner are concerned,
the contents of Wound Certificate Ex.P.5 reiterate the same.
But that is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that the
petitioner has suffered disability on account of injuries suffered
by him in the accident. In that regard, the petitioner has
examined PW 4 Dr.S.Ramachandra, Orthopedic Surgeon,
Bowring Hospital to speak about the disability suffered by him.
PW 4, in his evidence has clearly deposed about the nature of
injuries suffered by petitioner, nature of treatment administered
to him and after considering the effect of injuries, both clinically
and radiologically, assessed the total disability at 30% to the
whole body. PW 3 in his cross-examination has stated that
there is no mal-union of tibia, fibula and ulna. It is suggested
to him that he has exaggerated about the percentage of
disability and the said suggestion has been denied by him. He
has further denied the suggestion that he has not used the
structured formula while assessing the disability and the said
suggestion has been denied by him. It is further elicited from
him that he has not given treatment to the petitioner. Thus, if
we peruse the evidence of PW 3, who has not treated the
petitioner, the percentage of disability at 30% assessed by him
to the particular limb and 15% to the whole body, appears to be
on higher side, since he has taken 50% disability to the whole
body out of the disability assessed by him to the particular limb,
which in my opinion, should have been 1/3rd, if that be, so, the
disability to the whole body comes to 10% and not 15% as
26
assessed by PW 3. In that event, the petitioner is entitled to
compensation under the head disability as under:-
57. Income of the petitioner is taken as Rs.5,000/-. 10% of
which comes to Rs.500/- and annually, it comes to Rs.6,000/-.
Since the age of the petitioner was 30 years at the time of
accident, by applying 17 multiplier, the petitioner is held to be
entitled to a compensation under the head disability comes to
Rs.1,02,000/-.
58. Since the petitioner has suffered compound comminuted
fracture of both bones of left leg and fracture of ulna distal
1/3rd, he has to bear the brunt of the same throughout his life
and hence, I deem it just and proper to award Rs.30,000/-
under the head loss of amenities in life.
59. Thus, the petitioner has been awarded compensation
under various heads as under:-
Sl.No. Head of compensation Amount
Rs.
1. Injury, pain and suffering 40,000.00
2. Medical expenses, attendant, 25,000.00
conveyance and other incidental
expenses
3. Loss of income during treatment 20,000.00
4. Loss of earning capacity on account 1,02,000.00
of disability
5. Loss of amenities in life 30,000.00
Total 2,17,000.00
Accordingly issue No.2 in MVC No.1151/2012 is answered.
60. Issue No.2 in MVC No.1152/2012:- Petitioner in MVC
No.1152/2012 has been examined as PW 2. His evidence would
27
go to show that he sustained injuries in the accident and
immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Government
Hospital, Malur and after first aid treatment, he was shifted to
District SNR Hospital, Kolar for better treatment and he was
treated there as inpatient from 13.09.2011 to 26.09.2011 for 14
days. The petitioner has produced Ex.P.9 Wound Certificate
issued by Government Hospital, Malur perusal of which shows
that he has suffered tenderness over right hand, referred to SNR
Ortho Opinion. The petitioner has also produced Out Patient
Record issued by SNR Hospital, Kolar marked as Ex.P.10 which
shows that the petitioner was treated as outpatient and the
petitioner attended the hospital on various occasions. In this
case, though the petitioner as well as the doctor, who has been
examined as PW 4, have stated that the petitioner has suffered
closed supra condylar fracture of right humerus and that he
was inpatient for 14 days and that he was treated with open
reduction and internal fixation with RECON plating and inter
fragmentary screws and that it is the further evidence of PW 4
that the petitioner has suffered 34.3% disability to right upper
limb and 11% to whole body, but the said fact has not been
proved by placing on record the Discharge Summary or Case
Sheet from the concerned hospital. Under such circumstances,
I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for
compensation of Rs.30,000/- under the head pain and
suffering.
61. So far as medical expenses are concerned, as per Ex.P.11
Series, the petitioner has produced as many as 17 medical bills
amounting to Rs.5,242/-. I have gone through the bills
produced by the petitioner. Further, the accident has occurred
near Malur and he was treated at District SNR Hospital as per
28
the version of petitioner. Considering the gravity of the injuries
and the period of treatment, the petitioner has been awarded
Rs.8,500/- under the head medical expenses, attendant
charges, conveyance charges and other incidental expenses.
62. It is the case of petitioner that he was aged 22 years and
doing mason work and earning Rs.9,000/- per month.
Petitioner went on record to depose that during the period of
treatment and during the period of rest, he had to engage some
one to attend to him. So far as age is concerned, the petitioner
has not produced any documentary evidence thereby the
Tribunal has to rely on medical records to assess the age of the
petitioner. In this regard, if we peruse Ex.P.10 - OP Record, it
shows the age of the petitioner as 22 years. Thus, the age of the
petitioner is taken as 22 years at the time of accident.
63. So far as avocation and income is concerned, the
petitioner has stated that he was earning Rs.9000/- per month
by doing mason work, but the said fact has not been proved by
placing on record cogent evidence. Thus, considering the age of
the petitioner as 22 years, I deem it just and proper to take his
income as Rs.5,000/- per month.
64. As discussed above and as per the medical records, it is
clear that the petitioner has suffered closed supra condylar
fracture of right humerus which in my opinion, rendered the
petitioner incapable to do his job, at least for 2 months, which
has to be compensated under the head loss of income during
the period of treatment and accordingly, the petitioner has been
awarded Rs.10,000/- under the head loss of income during
treatment for 2 months.
29
65. The evidence of the petitioner would go to show that he
suffered closed supra condylar fracture of right humerus and
based on the said injuries, the petitioner contends that he has
suffered disability, which rendered him incapable to continue
his avocation as mason. As far as injuries suffered by petitioner
are concerned, the contents of Wound Certificate Ex.P.10
reiterate the same. But that is not sufficient to come to the
conclusion that the petitioner has suffered disability on account
of injuries suffered by him in the accident. In that regard,
though the petitioner has examined PW 4 Dr.S.Ramachandra,
Orthopedic Surgeon, Bowring Hospital to speak about the
disability suffered by him, however, except the oral evidence of
PW 4, who has not treated the petitioner, there is no other
evidence such as Discharge Summary, Case Sheet etc. In the
instant case, even though the petitioner contends that he has
suffered grievous injuries, which made him to take treatment as
inpatient for 14 days and that as per the evidence of PW 4, the
doctor, he has suffered 34.3% disability to particular limb and
11% disability to whole body, but to substantiate the same, no
supporting evidence is produced such as Discharge Summary,
Case Sheet etc., by the petitioner. Under such circumstances, I
deem it not fit to grant compensation under the head loss of
income on account of disability.
66. Since the petitioner has suffered closed supra condylar
fracture of right humerus, he has to bear the brunt of the same
throughout his life and hence, I deem it just and proper to
award Rs.20,000/- under the head loss of amenities in life.
30
67. Thus, the petitioner has been awarded compensation
under various heads as under:-
Sl.No. Head of compensation Amount
Rs.
1. Injury, pain and suffering 30,000.00
2. Medical expenses, attendant, 8,500.00
conveyance and other incidental
expenses
3. Loss of income during treatment 10,000.00
4. Loss of amenities in life 20,000.00
Total 68,500.00
Accordingly issue No.2 in MVC No.1152/2012 is answered.
68. Issue No.2 in MVC No.1153/2012:- The petitioner of
this case has been examined as PW 3. In her evidence, she
states that in the accident, she suffered laceration of 3 cm X 1
cm on left leg and abrasion over left forearm and that
immediately after the accident, she was shifted to Government
Hospital, Malur wherein first aid treatment was given and
thereafter, she was treated at Vinayaka Hosital, Malur as
outpatient for 2 months. To substantiate the same, she has
produced Ex.P.12 Wound Certificate, perusal of which reveals
that the petitioner has suffered (1) Laceration of 3 cm X 1 cm
over left leg and (2) Abrasion over the right forearm. Except the
same, the petitioner has not produced any other documents in
support of her case. Thus, from the pleadings and the
documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioner, it is
evident that the petitioner has suffered only two simple injuries
and that she was treated as outpatient. Under such
circumstances, I deem it just and proper to award Rs.10,000/-
as global compensation to the petitioner.
31
Accordingly issue No.2 is answered in MVC No.1153/2012.
69. So far as liability to pay compensation amount is
concerned, it is the contention of the respondent No.2 in all the
petitions that the vehicle in question was not having Permit as
on the date of the accident and thereby, the Insurance Company
is absolved from its liability. In this regard, the respondent No.2
has examined one N.A.Sharma, Administrative Officer as RW 1.
In his evidence, RW 1 has stated that after the accident, they
sent a registered letter to the respondent No.1 on 14.02.2012
itself asking her to furnish all the documents of the vehicle and
the said letter has been duly served on the respondent No.1,
however, she has not replied to the said letter. It is further
evidence of RW 1 that they made sincere effort to obtain the
permit of the vehicle through their investigators and also from
the Police Station as well as from the insured, but all the efforts
went in vain. The Policy of insurance issued in favour of
respondent No.1 in respect of the bus, specifically prescribes
that the vehicle should possess valid permit. Thus, it is
apparent that the vehicle in question had no Permit to run on
the date of accident and thus, the respondent No.2 is not liable
to indemnify the respondent. In his evidence, RW 1 got marked
Ex.R.1 to R.3 ie., Office Copy of letter dated 12.09.2014.
Endorsement issued by RTO Dharmapuri along with the receipt.
70. RW 1 has been cross-examined by the counsel for the
petitioners. It is elicited from RW 1 that the Police have not filed
charge sheet against the owner that they are not having permit.
It is further elicited from him that they have collected the entire
records from the Police except the permit. It is further elicited
that the bus involved in the accident is an interstate bus. It is
32
specifically elicited from RW 1 that immediately after the
accident, the Insurance Company wrote letter to the owner of
the bus to furnish all the documents.
71. The respondent No.2 has also examined RW 2, the then
Circle Inspector of Police, Malur Circle. In his evidence, he
states that collecting of documents is part of the investigation
and that during the course of investigation, they collect the
documents from the owner of the vehicle and in this case, the
owner did not furnish the permit. Though RW 2 has been
treated as hostile and cross-examined by counsel for respondent
No.2, nothing is elicited to disbelieve the version of respondent
No.2 that the vehicle did not possess the permit.
72. It is relevant to mention here that inspite of such a
contention being taken by the respondent No.2 to the effect that
the bus in question was not holding valid and effective permit as
on the date of the accident and thereby it is absolved to
indemnify the respondent No.1 from its liability, the petitioner
has not made any effort to produce copy of the permit held by
the bus at the time of accident. Further, it is relevant to
mention here that the respondent No.1, who is the owner of the
bus, inspite of receipt of letter from the respondent No.2 to
furnish the documents pertaining to bus, neither replied to the
same, nor contested this petition by filing statement of
objections, nor produced the copy of the permit held by the bus
at the time of accident.
73. It can be seen that vide Ex.R.1- copy of letter, the
respondent No.2 called upon the respondent No.1 to furnish the
documents mentioned in the said letter. Ex.R.2 is the Postal
33
Acknowledgement for having sent the same to the respondent
No.1. Since the respondent No.1 has not replied to the same,
thereafter, the respondent No.2 addressed a letter as per Ex.R.3
to the RTO Dharmapuri to issue a copy of the permit relating to
the bus in question. As per Ex.R.4, the RTO Dharmapuri
replied to Ex.R.3, stating that on perusal of records in their
office, it revealed that no such permit has been issued to the
vehicle in question. The petitioners have not disputed nor
produced any contra evidence showing that the bus in question
was holding valid permit on the date of accident. However, it is
the contention of the petitioner's counsel that there is temporary
permit issued in view of the High Court Order, but the same is
not produced either by petitioner or by the respondent No.1 and
hence, the said contention cannot be accepted.
74. In this regard, I would like to rely upon a decision
reported in 2009 ACJ 437 ( Ram Sujan Tiwari Vs. Sita Gupta
and others) wherein it is held as under:-
"Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 149(2)(a)(i)(c) _ Motor
Insurance - Permit - Breach of - Passenger risk - Liability of
insurance Company. Vehicle was being driven on a route for
which permit was not granted when it turned turtle resulting in
death of a passenger - Whether the Tribunal was justified in
exonerating insurance company from liability - Held : yes".
74. I would also like to rely upon another judgment reported
in 2005(2) TAC 6 (AIL) (Chandresh Kumar Agarwal Vs. Yogendra
Kumar Srivastava and another) wherein it is held that plying of
vehicle on road without valid permit and certificate of fitness
prohibited under law. Whether Tribunal committed error of law
in fastening liability to pay compensation on owner of vehicle -
34
Held - Owner of vehicle held liable to pay compensation to the
claimant."
75. Thus, in view of the principles laiddown in the judgments
supra, wherein it is clearly that plying of vehicle on road with
valid permit and certificate of fitness prohibited under law and
in the case on hand also, the petitioners have utterly failed to
prove that the bus in question was being run with valid permit
and fitness certificate inspite of opportunity being given to them.
Even the respondent No.2 has issued notice to the respondent
No.1 the owner of the Bus to produce the Permit and Fitness
Certificate as per notice marked as Ex.R.1 and inspite of that,
the respondent No.1 failed to produce those documents. Under
such circumstances, in view of the principles laiddown in the
above judgments, the liability has to be fastened only on
respondent No.1 and the respondent No.2 has to be exonerated
from its liability and it is only the respondent No.1, who has to
pay compensation and accordingly issue No.2 is answered in
both the petitions.
76. Issue No.3 in all the petitions:- In view of my answer
to issues No.1 and 2 as above, I pass the following:-
ORDER
MVC 7340/2011 The petition is partly allowed with costs.
The petitioners have been awarded compensation of Rs.11,40,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the realization from the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 shall deposit the 35 compensation amount within 2 months from the date of this order.
The compensation amount is apportioned as under:-
Petitioner No.1 - 55% Petitioner No.2 - 15% Petitioner No.3 - 15% Petitioner No.4 - 15% 50% out of the compensation amount apportioned in favour of petitioner No.1 is ordered to be released to her. Remaining amount with entire interest is ordered to be deposited in FD in her name for a period of 3 years in any nationalized or schedule bank of her choice. Interest on FD is payable on maturity.
Entire amount apportioned in favour of minor petitioners No.2 to 4 with interest thereon is ordered to be deposited in FD in their respective name in any nationalized or scheduled bank until they attain majority. Periodical interest on the same is ordered to be released to petitioner No.1 for the maintenance of minor petitioners.
MVC 7557/2011 The petition is partly allowed with costs.
The petitioner has been awarded compensation of Rs.2,94,840/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the realization from the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 shall deposit the compensation amount within 2 months from the date of this order.
Future medical expenses of Rs.40,000/- shall not carry any interest.36
50% out of the compensation is ordered to be released to the petitioner. Remaining amount with entire interest is ordered to be deposited in FD in her name for a period of 3 years in any nationalized or schedule bank of her choice. Interest on FD is payable on maturity.
MVC 1151/2012 The petition is partly allowed with costs.
The petitioner has been awarded compensation of Rs.2,17,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the realization from the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 shall deposit the compensation amount within 2 months from the date of this order.
50% out of the compensation is ordered to be released to the petitioner. Remaining amount with entire interest is ordered to be deposited in FD his name for a period of 3 years in any nationalized or schedule bank of his choice. Interest on FD is payable on maturity.
MVC 1152/2012 The petition is partly allowed with costs.
The petitioner has been awarded compensation of Rs.68,500/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the realization from the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 shall deposit the compensation amount within 2 months from the date of this order.37
50% out of the compensation is ordered to be released to the petitioner. Remaining amount with entire interest is ordered to be deposited in his name for a period of 3 years in any nationalized or schedule bank of his choice. Interest on FD is payable on maturity.
MVC 1153/2012 The petition is partly allowed with costs.
The petitioner has been awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the realization from the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 shall deposit the compensation amount within 2 months from the date of this order.
Entire compensation amount with interest is ordered to be released to her.
All the petitions as against the respondent No.2 are dismissed.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- in each case.
Original of the judgment shall be kept in MVC No.7340/2011 and a copy of the same be retained in other Cases.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in Open Court on 06.01.2015) (H.P.SANDESH) MEMBER, PRL.MACT 38 ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner:
IN MVC No.7340/2011 P.W.1 : Saraswathamma Witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents:
R.W.1 : N.A.Sharma R.W.2 : Keshavamurthy G., Documents marked on behalf of the petitioners: Ex.P.1& 2 : Certified copy of FIR with complaint Ex.P.3 :PM Report Ex.P.4 :Inquest Report Ex.P.5 :Statement Ex.P.6: :Spot Mahazar Ex.P.7: : Sketch Ex.P.8: : IMV Report Ex.P.9: :Copy of Ration Card Documents marked on behalf of the respondents: Ex.R.1to 3:Office copy of letter4 dated 12.09.2014 Ex.R.4: Endorsement issued by RTO Ex.R.5: Receipt Witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner: IN MVC No.7557/2011 P.W.1 : Nanjamma PW 2: Dr.Imran Hussain Witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents:
R.W.1 : N.A.Sharma R.W.2 : Keshavamurthy G., Documents marked on behalf of the petitioners: Ex.P.1& 2 : Certified copy of FIR with complaint Ex.P.3 :Spot Panchanama Ex.P.4 :IMV Report Ex.P.5 :Wound Certificate Ex.P.6: :Discharge Summary Ex.P.7: :Charge Sheet Ex.P.8: : 33 Medical Bills 39 Ex.P.9: :31 Medical Bills Ex.P.10: : Taxi Bill Ex.P.11: : Recent Clinical Examination Notes Ex.P.12: : Disability Evaluation Form Ex.P.13: : Inpatient Case Sheet Ex.P.14: : 5 X ray films Documents marked on behalf of the respondents: Ex.R.1to 3:Office copy of letter4 dated 12.09.2014 Ex.R.4: Endorsement issued by RTO Ex.R.5: Receipt Witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner: IN MVC No.1551/2012 to 1553/2012 P.W.1 : Venkatesh P.W.2: Vinod Raj P.W.3: Smt.Ammayamma P.W.4: Dr.S.Ramachandra Witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents:
R.W.1 : N.A.Sharma R.W.2 : Keshavamurthy G., Documents marked on behalf of the petitioners:
Ex.P.1 : Certified copy of FIR with complaint Ex.P.2 : Charge Sheet Ex.P.3: : Spot Mahazar Ex.P.4: : IMV Report Ex.P.5: : Wound Certificate Ex.P.6: : Discharge Summary Ex.P.7: : OP Record Ex.P.8: : 16 Medical Bills for Rs.14,856/- Ex.P.9: : Wound Certificate Ex.P.10: : OP Record Ex.P.11: : 17 Medical Bills for Rs.5,242/- Ex.P.12: : Wound Certificate Ex.P.13: : OP Record Ex.P.14: : 2 X rays Ex.P.15: : OPD Card Ex.P.16: : 2 X rays 40 Documents marked on behalf of the respondents: Ex.R.1:Office copy of letter dated 12.09.2014 Ex.R.2:Postal Acknowledgement Ex.R.3: Office copy of letter dated 12.09.2014 Ex.R.4: Endorsement issued by RTO Ex.R.5: Receipt (H.P.SANDESH) MEMBER, PRL.M.A.C.T