Bangalore District Court
Srinivas vs The Managing Director on 23 April, 2016
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AT BENGALURU
(SCCH:15)
DATED: THIS THE 23rd DAY OF APRIL, 2016
PRESENT : Smt. K.KATYAYINI,
XIII Addl.Small Cause Judge
& Member MACT, Bengaluru.
MVC No.824 & 825/2015
Petitioner/s Srinivas, V.
in MVC. 824/15 S/o Venkataswamy,
Aged about 28 years,
Residing at No.91,
Medahalli, Attibele Hobli,
Anekal Taluk,
Bengaluru District,
Pin - 562107.
Petitioner/s Maruthi. S.,
in MVC.825/15 S/o Srinivasa,
Aged about 28 years,
Residing at No.150,
Anekal Main Road,
Behind Shyam Sundar
Building,
Shakambari Layout, Attibele,
Bengaluru District,
Pin - 562107.
(By Pleader - Sri.B.N.Nanjappa.)
V/s
Respondent/s The Managing Director,
in both the cases K.S.R.T.C. Depot,
K.H. Road, Shanthinagar,
Bengaluru-560027.
(R.C. Owner of K.S.R.T.C. Bus
(SCCH-15) 2 MVC.824 & 825/2015
Bearing Reg. No.KA-42-F-189)
(By Pleader - Sri.M.Divakar Maddur.)
*****
COMMON JUDGMENT
Petitioners in both the petitions have filed these
petitions under Section 166 of MV Act seeking
compensation on account of injuries they have suffered
in the road traffic accident.
2. The brief facts of the case of petitioners in both
the petitions are that on 13.07.2014 at about 05:00 p.m.,
petitioner in MVC.824/2015 being the rider and
petitioner in MVC.825/2015 being the pillion rider of the
motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-51 EH-7498 were
proceeding on the extreme left side of the road i.e.
Kanakapura - Bengaluru (NH-209) Road.
b) When they reached near Yadavanahalli Gate, the
driver of KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-42 F-189
came from the Bengaluru side with high speed in a rash
and negligent manner and dashed to their motor cycle.
(SCCH-15) 3 MVC.824 & 825/2015
Because of which both of them fell down and suffered
severe injuries all over the body.
c) Accident took place sole due to the rash and
negligent driving of KSRTC bus driver. Therefore,
respondent being the RC owner and internal insurer of
KSRTC bus is liable to pay the compensation. Hence,
prayed to allow the petitions as sought for.
3. In response to the due service of notices, the
respondent put its appearance in both the petitions
through its common counsel and field its separate
statement of objections to the main petition taking
common defence.
b) It has denied the entire case of the petitioner and
has contended that the bus was moving very carefully
and cautiously and it was stopped on the left side of the
road and not yet started due to mechanical defect. The
rider of two wheeler came with high speed in a rash and
negligent manner could not control the vehicle. Because
of which, the motor cyclist dashed to the front right side
(SCCH-15) 4 MVC.824 & 825/2015
of the bus and both the riders fell down and suffered
injuries.
c) Therefore, there is no negligence on the part of its
driver in occurrence of the accident and the accident if
any took place due to the negligent riding of the motor
cyclist. Accordingly, both the petitioners are not entitled
for the compensation. Hence, prayed to dismiss the
petition against it with costs.
4. On the above said pleadings of the parties, this
Tribunal has framed the following common issues in both
the petitions.
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he
has sustained injury due to RTA alleged
to have been occurred on 13.07.2014 at
about 05:00 p.m., on Kanakapura -
Bengaluru (NH-209) Road, at
Yadavanahalli Gate due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of KSRTC
bus bearing registration No.KA-42 F-
189?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, what amount?
3. What order or award?
5. To prove the above said issues and to
substantiate their respective contentions, petitioners in
(SCCH-15) 5 MVC.824 & 825/2015
both the petitions themselves have entered into witness
box respectively as PWs-2 and 1. They got examined the
doctor who has treated and assessed the disability as
PWs-3 and 4. Got exhibited 28 documents and closed
their side.
b) Per contra, respondent got examined its driver as
RW-1. Got exhibited no document and closed its side.
Heard both the sides on merits of the case and perused
the record.
6. Now the findings of this Tribunal on the above
said issues and answered in both the petitions in the;
1. Issue No.1: Affirmative.
2. Issue No.2: Petitioners in MVC.824/2015
And 825/2015 are entitled
for the compensation of
Rs.6,79,200/- & Rs.5,40,500/-
respectively together with
interest at 9% p.a. from the
date of petition till realization
of the amount in its entirety
from respondent.
3. Issue No.3: As per final order for the
following reasons.
(SCCH-15) 6 MVC.824 & 825/2015
REASONS
7. Issue No.1 in both the petitions:- If the above
observed pleadings of the parties are taken into
consideration, it is clear that absolutely there is no
dispute between the parties with regard to the alleged
accident; the date, time and place of accident; the
vehicles involved in the accident and the respective
driver/rider of the vehicles at the time of accident.
8. Respondent has specifically contended that at the
time of accident, the driver of the bus i.e. RW-1 was
proceeding slowly and cautiously and stopped the bus
due to the mechanical defect because of which the bus
could not start.
9. It has also contended that by that time, the
petitioner in MVC.824/2015 who was rider of the motor
cycle came with high speed in a rash and negligent
manner, lost control over the vehicle and dashed to the
front right side of the bus, because of which the accident
took place. The one more defence is that at the time of
(SCCH-15) 7 MVC.824 & 825/2015
accident, the bus was stopped due to the mechanical
defect and it was not at all started.
10. Hence, the points that remained for the due
consideration of this Tribunal for the proper adjudication
of this issue is the fact that on whose negligence the
present accident took place and whether the bus was
stationed at the time of accident due to mechanical defect
which was not started.
11. To establish their respective contentions as noted
above, both the petitioners themselves have entered into
witness box as PWs-2 and 1 respectively. They have filed
their affidavit evidence in lieu of their examination in
chief wherein they have specifically deposed that the
present accident is because of the sole negligent of the
bus driver/RW-1.
12. In their cross-examination their chief evidence is
denied by way of suggestions and the defence raised on
behalf of respondent that the accident is because of the
negligent riding of the petitioner in MVC.824/2015 is
(SCCH-15) 8 MVC.824 & 825/2015
also suggested by way of suggestions which are in turn
denied by both the petitioners.
13. To substantiate its defence as noted above,
respondent got examined its driver as RW-1 who has filed
his affidavit evidence wherein he has reiterated the
statement of objections averments of the respondent to
the main petition and he has specifically deposed that at
the time of accident he was proceeding slowly and
cautiously and the bus all of a sudden stopped because
of mechanical defect and it was not at all started.
14. In his cross-examination his chief evidence is
denied by way of suggestions which are in turn denied by
them. However, it is elicited that he has not produced
any document to substantiate his evidence that the bus
was stationed due to the mechanical defect; he is charge
sheeted for the present accident and he is facing criminal
trial before the Hon'ble Court, Kanakapura.
15. Of course, he has denied the suggestion that he
has lodged the complaint stating that two wheeler rider
himself came and dashed to the bus, but he has
(SCCH-15) 9 MVC.824 & 825/2015
admitted the suggestion that he has not produced the
copy of said complaint before this Tribunal. So, there is
nothing on record to substantiate the oral evidence of
RW-1 in support of the contention of respondent that the
accident is because of the negligent riding of the
petitioner in MVC.824/2015 and the bus was stopped
due to mechanical defect and it was not started.
16. On the other hand, it is an admitted fact that for
the present accident, it is RW-1 who is charge sheeted
and he is facing criminal trial. Petitioner has also
produced police papers i.e. true copies of FIR with
complaint, spot mahazar, seizer mahazar, MV report and
charge sheet respectively at Ex.P-1 to 5.
17. All the police papers categorically reveal that the
jurisdictional police initially have registered criminal case
against bus driver/RW-1 for the offences punishable
under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC and after the
investigation, they have charge sheeted him for the
offences punishable under Section 279 and 338 of IPC.
(SCCH-15) 10 MVC.824 & 825/2015
18. There is no specific cross-examination on behalf
of respondent about the police papers which are in
support of the case of petitioner. Moreover, as noted
above, RW-1 has admitted that he is chare sheeted for
the present accident and facing criminal trial.
19. The police papers also reveal that there was no
mechanical defect and the bus was moving. It is
specifically alleged in the police papers that the bus
driver i.e. RW-1 came with high speed in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed to the two wheeler.
20. Moreover, there is presumption with regard to
the police papers that they are prepared by the
investigating officers while discharging their official
duties in investigation of a crime. Of course, the said
presumption is rebuttal one. But no such rebuttal
evidence let in by the respondent.
21. Therefore, there is nothing on record to
disbelieve the oral evidence of petitioners supported by
the police papers at Ex.P-1 to 5 and the admitted facts as
well which are in support of the case of petitioners about
(SCCH-15) 11 MVC.824 & 825/2015
the negligent driving of the bus driver resulting in the
present accident.
22. So far petitioners suffering injuries in the
accident, absolutely there is no dispute. In addition, to
substantiate that petitioners apart from their oral
evidence have also produced medical records such as
wound certificates, discharge summaries, x-rays and
hospital and medical bills, case sheets and also the oral
evidence of PWs-3 and 4, the treated doctor also assessed
the disability.
23. Moreover, if the line of cross-examination of
respondent to the petitioners and the doctora are taken
note off, it is clear that even respondent has raised
objections with regard to the nature of injuries, nature of
treatment, quantum of disability and quantum of medical
expenditure, it has not at all disputed the fact of both the
petitioners suffering injuries in the present accident.
24. Therefore, petitioners with their oral evidence
and the supportive oral evidence of PWs-3 and 4 as well
as medical records and the police papers noted above
(SCCH-15) 12 MVC.824 & 825/2015
and also admitted facts have successfully established
that the present accident is because of the negligent
driving of the KSRTC bus driver i.e. RW-1 and they have
suffered injuries in the accident. Therefore, issue No.1 in
both the petitions is answered in affirmative.
25. Issue No.2 in both the petitions:- In view of
answering issue No.1 in affirmative, both the petitioners
are entitled for compensation. Now in respect of
quantum.
26. In MVC.824/2015, it is the case of petitioner
that he was aged 28 years, was an agriculturist cum milk
vendor and had income of Rs.15,000/- per month. To
establish that petitioner apart from his oral evidence has
not produced any specific age proof document.
27. However, he has produced the notarized copy of
voter ID and ration card respectively at Ex.P-21 and 22
which reveals his birth year as 1983 and his age as 18
years respectively and the date of issue of ration card at
Ex.P-22 is shown as 12.03.2008. The date of accident is
(SCCH-15) 13 MVC.824 & 825/2015
13.07.2014. So, as per Ex.P-21 and 22, petitioner was
aged 21 years and 24 years respectively.
28. In the police papers and in the medical records
his age is shown as 28 years. However, even there is
contractions in the evidence on record, the age pleaded
by the petitioner is at the higher end. Therefore, there is
nothing on record to disbelieve the case of petitioner
about his age. Hence, his age is accepted as 28 years, for
which the proper multiplier applicable is 17.
29. To prove his alleged avocation and income,
petitioner apart from his oral evidence has not produced
any supportive evidence either oral or documentary.
However, in the charge sheet it is stated that he is an
agriculturist which is not disputed by the other side. So
far his one avocation i.e. milk vending, there is no
supportive evidence on record. However, his pleading
about agriculture since supported by the charge sheet,
his avocation is accepted as an agriculturist.
30. With regard to quantum of income, except the
oral evidence of petitioner, there is nothing on record.
(SCCH-15) 14 MVC.824 & 825/2015
Therefore, considering the nature of avocation and the
age of petitioner as well as the cost of living as on the
date of accident, it is thought just and proper to take his
notional income at Rs.7,500/- per month.
31. It is the case of petitioner that in the accident he
has suffered comminuted fracture of right tibia and
fibula; neck and mid shaft fracture of right femur;
deformity of right leg and other grievous injuries all over
the body; took treatment in Sai Ram Hospital and
Blossom Multi Speciality Hospital, Bengaluru as an
inpatient from 13.07.2014 to 20.07.2014 and still under
treatment.
32. It is also his case that he has already incurred
expenditure at Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical,
conveyance, nourishment charges and other incidental
charges and became permanently disabled because of the
accidental injuries. Petitioner has reiterated the above
observed petition averments in his affidavit evidence. In
his cross-examination, his chief evidence is denied by
way of suggestions which are in turn denied by him.
(SCCH-15) 15 MVC.824 & 825/2015
33. PW-4, the doctor who has treated and assessed
the disability is examined as PW-4 who has filed his
affidavit evidence wherein he has stated that petitioner
was brought to their hospital with the history of road
traffic accident dated 13.07.2014 and was brought to the
hospital on the very day,
34. He has also deposed that petitioner was
diagnosed for fracture of right tibia and fibula and right
femur fracture at neck and shaft of femur; was treated
surgically in the form of intramedullary interlocking
nailing of right tibia and IMIL nailing for right femur and
was discharged on 19.07.2014 in medically stabled
condition.
35. It is also in his affidavit evidence that on
01.02.2016, he has examined the petitioner for
assessment of disability. On clinical examination and
radiological examination as well as on the complaints of
the petitioner, it is found that petitioner is having
permanent physical impairment to the right lower limb at
52% which comes to the whole body at 17%.
(SCCH-15) 16 MVC.824 & 825/2015
36. He has produced case sheet and x-rays and
written estimation about further surgery cost respectively
at Ex.P-25 to 27. In his cross-examination he has
specifically deposed that he has personally treated the
petitioner and also one of the team conducted surgery.
However, he has admitted the suggestion that in the
surgery notes, his signature is not forth coming.
37. If the documents produced on behalf of
petitioners are taken note off, Ex.P-16 is the wound
certificate and Ex.P-17 is the discharge summary issued
by Blossom hospital and they reveal that the petitioner
was brought to their hospital with the history of road
traffic accident dated 13.07.2014 at 4:30 p.m. and he
was admitted on the very day at 10:30 p.m.
38. He has also deposed that petitioner diagnosed
for comminuted fracture of right tibia and fibula lower
1/3rd as well as ipsilateral neck fracture and mid shaft
fracture of right femur; was treated surgically for both
fracture on the next day i.e. on 14.07.2014 and was
discharged in medically stabled condition on 20.07.2014.
(SCCH-15) 17 MVC.824 & 825/2015
39. Ex.P-18 is the lab reports; Ex.P-20 is the
prescription; Ex.P-23 is the case sheet and Ex.P-24 is the
x-ray films which are produced by the doctor i.e. PW-4.
The contents of above documents are in corroboration
with the contents at Ex.P-16 and 17 thereby the oral
evidence of PW-4.
40. So, if the entire evidence on record is taken note
off, it can be safely held that in the accident petitioner
has suffered fracture of both bones of right leg and
fracture of femur; was treated surgically; was in the
hospital for a period of 8 days; was discharged in
medically stabled condition and the fracture is united.
41. To prove the medical expenditure, petitioner
apart from his oral evidence has produced the inpatient
bill for Rs.1,46,450/- at Ex.P-19 which is issued by
Blossom Hospital wherein the payment mode is shown as
cash, there is no mention that it is a corporate bill. So, it
appears that petitioner himself has borne the said
medical expenditure. Accordingly, he is entitled for the
above inpatient bill.
(SCCH-15) 18 MVC.824 & 825/2015
42. He has also produced the hospital and medical
bills 45 in nos. totally amounting to Rs.99,537.87 at
Ex.P-28. Most of the bills therein are all the pharmacy
bills and OP cash bills of Blossom hospital. Some of the
bills are of Sri Sai Ram hospital and other private
medicals'. The pharmacy bills are not included in the
inpatient bill.
43. Moreover, all the bills at Ex.P-28 are the original
bills in the name of petitioner. Hence, petitioner is
entitled for those bills are. If the nature of injuries,
nature of treatment, the inpatient period and the
hospitals wherein petitioner took treatment are private
hospital are taken note off, it appears that petitioner has
incurred expenses more than that. Therefore, it is
thought just and proper to award Rs.2,50,000/-
including the bills at Ex.P-19 and 28 series.
44. It is in the evidence of PW-4 that the petitioner
is having permanent physical impairment to the right
lower limb at 52% because of which he has whole body
disability at 17%. Admittedly, it is the case of petitioner
(SCCH-15) 19 MVC.824 & 825/2015
that he is an agriculturist cum milk vendor and in view of
the police papers it is accepted that the petitioner is an
agriculturist by profession.
45. Therefore, this Tribunal can take judicial notice
that the disability petitioner has definitely will come in
the way of his functional ability. Accordingly, considering
the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence
of PW-4, nature of injuries, age of the petitioner and the
nature of avocation, it is thought just and proper to take
the whole body disability of the petitioner at 14% for
calculation of loss of future earning, loss of amenities
and comforts as well as for permanent physical
impairment.
46. In the result, petitioner is entitled for
compensation under the heads mentioned below and the
amount shown against them.
Pain and Sufferings Rs. 30,000/-
Loss of Income during laid up Rs. 25,000/-
period, diet, nourishment and etc.
Attendant Charges, Conveyance, Rs. 25,000/-
and Incidental Charges
Medical Expenditure Rs.2,50,000/-
Loss of future earning
(SCCH-15) 20 MVC.824 & 825/2015
(7,500 x 12 x 14/100 x 17) Rs.2,14,200/-
Loss of Amenities and Comfort Rs. 60,000/-
Permanent physical impairment Rs. 75,000/-
Total: Rs.6,79,200/-
47. In MVC.825/2015, it is the case of petitioner
that he was aged 23 years; was a student and milk
vendor and had income of Rs.8,000/- per month. To
establish that petitioner apart from his oral evidence has
produce notarized copy of the ration card, voters ID,
aadhaar card and SSLC marks card respectively at Ex.P-
12 to 14 and 23.
48. In those documents, his age is shown as 20
years and the date of birth is shown as 23.06.1982,
23.05.1982 and 23.05.1982 respectively. The date of
issue of ration card is shown as 03.02.2011. The
accident took place on 13.07.2014. So, as on the date of
accident as per Ex.P-12 to 14, the petitioner was age
about 22 years and the age pleaded in the petition is 23
years.
49. Moreover, in the police papers and in the
medical records his age is shown as 22 and 23 years
(SCCH-15) 21 MVC.824 & 825/2015
respectively. There is no cross-examination about the age
of petitioner. Hence, there is nothing on record to
disbelieve his age. Therefore, the age of the petitioner is
accepted as 23 years, for which the proper multiplier
applicable is 18.
50. So far his avocation as milk vendor, petitioner
has not produced any supportive evidence. With regard
to his contention that he is a student, he has produced
notarized copy of the 2nd PUC marks card, provision
degree certificate, examination admission card for law
exams and student ID card respectively at Ex.P-24 to 27
which reveals that petitioner after completing his degree,
now studying law degree and Ex.P-27 reveals that for the
academic year 2015-16 he is at 1st LLB of 3 years course.
51. So, there is nothing on record to disbelieve the
contention of the petitioner that he is a student i.e. law
student as on the date of accident. So far the milk
vending business, of course he has not produced any
document.
(SCCH-15) 22 MVC.824 & 825/2015
52. In the police papers he is shown as a student.
However, the back ground of the petitioner is taken note
off, considering his age, the educational qualification and
he is from scheduled cast that too from rural area, this
Tribunal can take judicial notice that he has to work and
to continue his studies. Hence, it is thought just and
proper to take the notional income of the petitioner at
Rs.6,000/- per month.
53. It is the case of petitioner that in the accident he
has suffered compound fracture of right femur, crush
injury over right index finger and other grievous injuries
all over the body; took treatment in Sai Ram Hospital and
Sparsha Hospital, Bengaluru as an inpatient; still he is
under treatment and has already incurred expenditure at
Rs.2,00,000/- towards treatment, conveyance and other
incidental expenditure.
54. It is also his case that he became permanently
disabled because of the accidental injuries. Petitioner has
reiterated basing on the petition averments in his
affidavit evidence. In his cross-examination his chief
(SCCH-15) 23 MVC.824 & 825/2015
evidence is denied by way of suggestions which are in
turn denied by him.
55. However, in his cross-examination he has
specifically deposed that in the accident he has suffered
fracture of right femur and right index finger and treated
by Dr.Purushotham in Sparsha Hospital; was operated
for fractures in the said hospital and the injuries are
healed. At this stage, he has voluntarily deposed that the
pain subsists and he was inpatient in the hospital from
13th to 17th.
56. PW-3, the doctor who has treated and assessed
the disability has filed his affidavit evidence wherein he
has stated that petitioner was brought to their hospital
with the history of RTA dated 13.07.2014 and was
brought to the hospital on the very day.
57. He has also deposed that petitioner was
diagnosed type I fracture of right femur, crush injury of
right index finger; was treated surgically for the fractures
in the form of closed reduction and internal fixation with
IMIL nail on 14.07.2014 and the crush injury of the right
(SCCH-15) 24 MVC.824 & 825/2015
index finger with wound debridement and K wire fixation
on 14.07.2014 and was discharged on 16.07.2014 with
an advise for regular follow up treatment.
58. It is also in his affidavit evidence that he has
examined the petitioner on 23.01.2016 for assessment of
disability. On clinical examination and radiological
examination as well as on the complaints of the
petitioner, it is found that petitioner is having permanent
physical impairment to the right lower limb at 40% and
right index finger at 10% totally 50% because of which he
has whole body disability at 16.6%.
59. He has also deposed that petitioner is in need of
one more surgery for removal of implants after union of
fracture and the cost of which may around Rs.40,000/-
in their hospital. He has produced case sheet and x-rays
at Ex.P-23A and 24A.
60. In his cross-examination, he has admitted the
suggestion that at the time of discharge the condition of
petitioner was stable and the fractures are united. He has
also admitted the suggestion that petitioner walked
(SCCH-15) 25 MVC.824 & 825/2015
inside the Court comfortably. But he has denied the
suggestion that the disability he has assessed is false
disability.
61. If the documents are taken into consideration,
Ex.P-6 is the wound certificate and Ex.P-7 is the
discharge summary issued by Sparsha Hospital which
reveals that the petitioner was brought to their hospital
with the history of RTA dated 13.07.2014 at about 5:00
p.m. and he was brought to the said hospital on the very
day at 10.34 p.m.
62. It is also there that petitioner was diagnosed for
type I right femur mid shaft fracture and crush injury of
right index finger; was treated surgically in the form of
intramedullary interlocking nailing to the right femur and
K wire fixation for fracture of neck and middle phalanx
and suturing of right index finger on the next day i.e.
14.07.2014 and was discharged in medically stabled
condition on 16.07.2014.
63. Ex.P-8 is the x-ray films and are in
corroboration with Ex.P-6 and 7. PW-3 the doctor has
(SCCH-15) 26 MVC.824 & 825/2015
produced case sheet at Ex.p-23A and x-ray films at Ex.P-
24A. The contents therein are also in corroboration with
the contents at Ex.P-6 and 7 and thereby the oral
evidence of PW-3 as well.
64. So, if the entire evidence on record is taken into
consideration, it can be safely held that the petitioner has
suffered type I fracture of right femur and crush injury of
right index finger; has undergone two surgeries; was an
inpatient in the hospital from 13.07.2014 to 16.07.2014
i.e. for 4 days; was discharged in medically stabled
condition; fractures are in process of union and the
implants are not removed and thus, petitioner is in need
of one more surgery for removal of implants.
65. To prove the medical expenditure, petitioner
apart from his oral evidence has produced Ex.P-9, the
hospital and medical bills totally 35 in nos. amounting to
Rs.1,53,992.03. The bill at Sl.No.27 is the inpatient bill
for Rs.68,264.53. There is no mention that the said bill is
a corporate bill.
(SCCH-15) 27 MVC.824 & 825/2015
66. Moreover, the petitioner has produced the
advance paid receipts at Sl.Nos.23 to 26 totally for
Rs.68,254.53ps. Therefore, there is nothing on record to
disbelieve the case of petitioner that it is he who has
borne the inpatient bill.
67. So far rest of the bills, they are of OP cash
receipts as well as the pharmacy bills of the sparsha
hospital and the pharmacy bills are not included in the
inpatient final bill. Therefore, petitioner is entitled for the
bills at Ex.P-9 series totally amounting to Rs.99,573.87ps
rounded off to Rs.1,00,000/-.
68. It is evident on record that the implants are not
yet removed. It is in the evidence of PW-3 that the
approximate surgery cost will be Rs.40,000/-. Hence, it is
thought just and proper to award some reasonable
compensation for future medical expenses as well.
69. It is in the evidence of PW-3 that the petitioner
is having permanent physical impairment to the whole
body at 16.6%. Considering the nature of injuries and the
age of petitioner and the fact that petitioner is a student
(SCCH-15) 28 MVC.824 & 825/2015
cum labourer, it is thought just and proper to take the
whole body disability at 12% for calculation of loss of
future earning, loss of amenities and comforts as well as
for permanent physical impairment. In the result,
petitioner is entitled for compensation under the heads
mentioned below and the amount shown against them.
Pain and Sufferings Rs. 50,000/-
Loss of Income during laid up Rs. 20,000/-
period, Diet, Nourishment and etc.
Attendant Charges, Conveyance, Rs. 20,000/-
and Incidental Charges
Medical Expenditure Rs. 1,00,000/-
Future medical expenditure Rs. 20,000/-
Loss of future earning Rs. 1,55,520/-
(6,000 x 12 x 12/100 x 18) Rs.
Loss of Amenities and Comfort Rs. 75,000/-
For permanent physical impairment Rs. 1,00,000/-
Total: Rs.5,40,520/-
rounded off to Rs.5,40,500/-.
70. Considering the cost of living on the date of
accident, it is thought fit to award interest at 9% p.a.
from the date of petition till the realization of the
compensation amount in its entirety.
71. Now, in respect of liability. There is no dispute
between the parties with regard to the fact that
respondent is the RC owner and internal insurer of the
(SCCH-15) 29 MVC.824 & 825/2015
KSRTC bus. Therefore, respondent alone is liable to pay
the compensation.
72. Therefore, petitioner in MVC.824/2015 and
MVC.825/2015 are entitled for the compensation of
Rs.6,79,200/- and Rs.5,40,500/- respectively together
with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till
realization of the amount in its entirety from respondent.
Accordingly, issue No.2 is answered in both the petitions.
73. Issue No.3 in both the petitions:- From the
above discussions, this Tribunal proceeds to pass the
following order.
ORDER
Both the petitions filed by petitioners in MVC.824/2015 and MVC.825/2015 under Section 166 of MV Act are hereby allowed in part with costs.
In the result, petitioner in MVC.824/2015 and MVC.825/2015 are entitled for the compensation of Rs.6,79,200/- and Rs.5,40,500/- respectively together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization of the amount in its entirety from respondent.
(SCCH-15) 30 MVC.824 & 825/2015 Respondent shall deposit the compensation amount together with interest and cost within 30 days from today.
On deposit of compensation amount, petitioners in MVC.824/2015 and in MVC.825/2015, shall deposit Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- respectively in Karnataka Bank, City Civil Court Branch, Bengaluru for a period of 5 years and the remaining compensation amount together with interest and cost is ordered to be released in favour of the respectively petitioners through an account payee cheque without awaiting further orders.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/- each in both the cases.
Draw a decree accordingly.
Office is directed to keep the original copy of the judgment in MVC.824/2015 and the copy thereof in MVC.825/2015.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced in the open Court by me on this the 23rd day of April, 2016.) (K.KATYAYINI), XIII Addl. Judge & Member MACT Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.
(SCCH-15) 31 MVC.824 & 825/2015 ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS:
PW1: Maruthi. S PW2: Srinivasa. V PW3: Dr. Nagaraj B.N. PW4: Dr. Chandan Dash
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS:
RW1: Venkatesh. R LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS:
Ex.P1 : True copy of FIR with Complaint, Ex.P2 : True copy of spot mahazar, Ex.P3 : True copy of seizer mahazar, Ex.P4 : True copy of MV report, Ex.P5 : True copy of charge sheet, Ex.P6 : True copy of wound certificate, Ex.P7 : Discharge summary, Ex.P8 : X-rays (7 in nos.), Ex.P9 : Hospital and medical bills (35 in nos.) amounting to Rs.1,53,992.03, Ex.P10 : Notarized copy of tax paid receipt Ex.P11 : Notarized copy of policy Ex.P12 : Notarized copy of ration card Ex.P13 : Notarized copy of Voter ID Ex.P14 : Notarized copy of Aadhaar card Ex.P15 : Notarized copy of RC Ex.P16 : True copy of wound certificate, Ex.P17 : Discharge summary, Ex.P18 : Lab reports (7 in nos.), Ex.P19 : Inpatient bill for Rs.1,46,450/-, Ex.P20 : Prescription, Ex.P21 : Notarized copy Voter ID Ex.P22 : Notarized copy of ration card Ex.P23 : Notarized copy of SSLC marks card (SCCH-15) 32 MVC.824 & 825/2015 Ex.P24 : Notarized copy of 2nd PUC marks card Ex.P25 : Notarized copy of provision degree certificate Ex.P26 : Notarized copy of examination admission card for law exams Ex.P27 : Notarized copy of student ID card Ex.P23A Case sheet Ex.P24A X-ray films (2 in nos.) Ex.P25A Case sheet Ex.P26A X-ray films (3 in nos.) Ex.P27A Written estimation about future surgery cost. Ex.P28: Hospital and Medical bills (45 in nos.) amounting to Rs.99,573.87 LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS:
-Nil-
(K.KATYAYINI), XIII Addl. Judge & Member MACT Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.