Bangalore District Court
The Owner Of The Tempo Traveller ... vs Is Liable To Pay The Compensation on 1 March, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL. SMALL CAUSES AND
ADDL. MACT., BANGALORE, (SCCH-7)
Dated this, the 1st day of March, 2016.
PRESENT : SMT.INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR,
B.Com.,LL.B.(Spl.),L.L.M.,
IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM,
Court of Small Causes,
Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w. M.V.C.No.2676, 2677 and 2678/2014
1.B.A.Mahadev, ..... PETITIONERS IN
S/o. B. Annegowda, M.V.C.No.2675/2014
Aged about 49 years.
2. Mast. B.M. Lekhan,
S/o. B.A. Mahadev,
Aged about 19 years.
3. Kum. B.M. Vismitha Gowda,
D/o. B.A. Mahadev,
Aged about 14 years.
All are residing at,
No.9th E Cross,
S.B. I Colony,
J.P. Nagar, 1st Phase,
Bangalore-560 078.
(Since Petitioner No.3 is a minor,
hence, represented by her Father B.A.
Mahadev as Natural Guardian)
(By Sri. Prakash. M. H., Adv.,)
V/s
1. Reliance General Insurance
SCCH-7 2 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
Co, Ltd, ..... RESPONDENTS IN
No.28, 5th Floor, East Wing, M.V.C.No.2675/2014
Centenary Building,
M.G .Road,
Bangalore.
(Tempo Traveller KA-50-6483)
(Policy No.1415732340000072,
Valid from 27.05.2013 to 26.05.2014)
2. Ravi Kumar. C.,
S/o. Chandrappa,
No.148, Sahakarnagar,
Kodigehalli,
Bangalore North,
Bangalore-560 092.
(R-1 By Sri.B. C. Shivannegowda,
Adv.,)
(R-2 By Sri. T. R. Ramesh, Adv.,)
B.A. Mahadeva, ..... PETITIONER IN
S/o. B. Annegowda, M.V.C.No.2676/2014
Aged about 49 years,
Residing at No.9th E Cross,
S.B.I Colony,
J.P. Nagar, 1st Phase,
Bangalore-560 078.
(By Sri. Prakash. M. H., Adv.,)
V/s
1. Reliance General Insurance ..... RESPONDENTS IN
Co, Ltd, M.V.C.No.2676/2014
No.28, 5th Floor, East Wing,
Centenary Building,
SCCH-7 3 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
M.G. Road,
Bangalore.
(Tempo Traveller KA-50-6483)
(Policy No.1415732340000072,
Valid from 27.05.2013 to 26.05.2014)
2. Ravi Kumar. C.,
S/o. Chandrappa,
No.148, Sahakarnagar,
Kodigehalli,
Bangalore North,
Bangalore-560 092.
(R-1 By Sri. B. C. Shivannegowda,
Adv.,)
(R-2 By Sri. T. R. Ramesh, Adv.,)
Kum. B. M. Vismitha Gowda, ..... PETITIONER IN
D/o. B. A. Mahadev, M.V.C.No.2677/2014
Aged about 14 years,
Residing at No.9, 9th E Cross,
S.B. I Colony,
J.P. Nagar, 1st Phase,
Bangalore-560 078.
(Petitioner since minor, hence,
represented by her Father B. A.
Mahadev as a Natural Guardian)
(By Sri. Prakash. M. H, Adv.,)
V/s
1. Reliance General Insurance
.....RESPONDENT IN
Co, Ltd,
SCCH-7 4 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
No.28, 5th Floor, East Wing, M.V.C.No.2677/2014
Centenary Building,
M. G. Road,
Bangalore.
(Tempo Traveller KA-50-6483)
(Policy No.1415732340000072,
Valid from 27.05.2013 to 26.05.2014)
2. Ravi Kumar. C.,
S/o. Chandrappa,
No.148, Sahakarnagar,
Kodigehalli,
Bangalore North,
Bangalore-560 092.
(R-1 By Sri. B. C. Shivannegowda,
Adv.,)
(R-2 By Sri. T. R. Ramesh, Adv.,)
Smt. Indira, ..... PETITIONER IN
W/o. Late K. P. Krishnamurthy, M.V.C.No.2678/2014
Aged about 58 years,
Residing at No.9, 9th E Cross,
S.B. I Colony,
J. P. Nagar, 1st Phase,
Bangalore-560 078.
(By Sri. Prakash. M. H, Adv.,)
V/s
1. Reliance General Insurance .....RESPONDENT IN
Co, Ltd, M.V.C.No.2678/2014
No.28, 5th Floor, East Wing,
Centenary Building,
M. G. Road,
Bangalore.
SCCH-7 5 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
(Tempo Traveller KA-50-6483)
(Policy No.1415732340000072,
Valid from 27.05.2013 to 26.05.2014)
2. Ravi Kumar. C.,
S/o. Chandrappa,
No.148, Sahakarnagar,
Kodigehalli,
Bangalore North,
Bangalore-560 092.
(R-1 By Sri. B. C. Shivannegowda,
Adv.,)
(R-2 By Sri. T. R. Ramesh, Adv.,)
COMMON JUDGMENT
As per the Order dated 27.03.2015 passed on memo in
M.V.C.No.2675/2014, M.V.C.No.2676/2014 to
M.V.C.No.2678/2014 are clubbed with M.V.C.No.2675/2014
and the common evidence and trial is conducted in
M.V.C.No.2675/2014 and hence, M.V.C.No.2675/2014,
M.V.C.No.2676/2014, M.V.C.No.2677/2014 and
M.V.C.No.2678/2014 are pending for consideration and
disposal by passing a common judgment before this Tribunal.
2. The Petitioner in M.V.C.No.2675/2014 has filed the
said petition as against the Respondents No.1 and 2 under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, praying to award
compensation of Rupees 30,00,000/- with interest at the rate
of 12% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
SCCH-7 6 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
3. The brief averments of the Petitioners' case in
M.V.C. No.2675/2014 are as follows;
a) They are husband and children of deceased Smt.
Parinitha. K., deceased and her family member were went to
Tamilnadu in a Tempo Traveller bearing Registration No.KA-
50-6483, which belongs to Respondent No.2. After visited some
places at Tamilnadu, on 03.09.2013 in the early morning at
12.10 a.m., they were returning from Tamilnadu towards
Bangalore and when they reached near Thengal Palyam
Diversion Road, Selam Namakkal N.H. Road, at that time, the
driver of Tempo Traveller drove his vehicle in a rash and
negligent manner with high speed so as to endangering to
human life and he lost the control on his vehicle, due to which,
the vehicle ran over on the Center median of the road and
within no time, the vehicle was toppled on the road. Due to the
impact of the accident, Smt.Parinitha. K., sustained grievous
injuries to all over the body and she succumbed to the injuries.
b) At the time of accident, the deceased was hale and
healthy and was carrying Saree business, by that, she was
earning a sum of Rupees 3,00,000/- and she was an income
tax assessee.
c) Due to the accident and accidental untimely death
of the deceased, the entire family is put to great financial loss
and mental agony.
SCCH-7 7 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
d) The accident occurred solely due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Tempo
traveler bearing Registration No.KA-50-5483. Hence,
Vennandur Police have registered a case as against the driver
of said offending Tempo Traveller under Sections 279, 337, 338
and 304-A of IPC.
e) The 1st Respondent being the insurer and the
second Respondent being the owner of the said offending
vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation
to them. Hence this petition.
4. In response to the notice, the Respondent No.1 has
appeared before this Tribunal through its Learned Counsel.
But, initially, inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the
Respondent No.1 had not filed the written statement. Later, as
per the Order dated 25.11.2014 passed on I.A.No.I, the written
statement filed by the Respondent No.1 is taken on file.
5. In response to the notice, the Respondent No.2 has
appeared before this Tribunal through his Learned Counsel
and has filed the written statement.
6. The Respondent No.1 inter-alia denying the entire
case of the Petitioners in M.V.C.No.2675/2014, has further
contended as follows;
SCCH-7 8 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
a) The petition for grant of compensation on account
of death of one Smt. Parinitha. K. in an accident that on
03.09.2013 between 4 to 6 a.m., involving the Tempo Traveller
bearing No.KA-50-6483 is not maintainable either in law or on
facts.
b) No such policy was issued covering the Tempo
Traveller bearing No.KA-50-6483.
c) The owner of the vehicle, i.e., the 2nd Respondent
has not submitted the claim form and other documents, like,
policy, RC, DL, Permit, etc., for verification. Hence, it is
permitted to file the additional written statement as and when
the above requirements are submitted by the owner of the
vehicle on question.
d) The driver of the Tempo Traveller drove the same
without having a valid and effective driving licence, which is in
contravention of the policy condition and also the Motor
Vehicles Act and the owner of the vehicle entrusted the said
vehicle knowing fully well that, the driver was not having a
valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in
question and thereby, there is clear violation of the policy
terms and conditions of the policy and also the Motor Vehicles
Act and if the owner or the Petitioners produce the better
policy particulars and hence, it is not liable to pay any
compensation and the petition as against it, is liable to be
dismissed.
SCCH-7 9 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
e) If the owner of the vehicle, i.e., the 2nd Respondent
not contesting the claim petition or he is placed exparte before
the Court or he has colluded with the Petitioners, then, it be
permitted to contest the matter on all the grounds available
under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
f) It may be true that, the accident in question has
occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the
Tempo Traveller by its driver. The first Petitioner is working as
an Engineer and earning salary of Rupees 40,000/- per month
and hence, he is not depending on the income of the deceased.
g) The driver of the Tempo Traveller drove the same
without having a valid and effective driving licence, which is in
contravention of the policy condition and also the Motor
Vehicles Act, if the policy particulars are produced by the
Petitioners. The owner of the Tempo Traveller willfully
entrusted the vehicle, knowing fully well that, the driver of the
vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence to
drive the vehicle in question and further the owner of the
Tempo Traveler willfully entrusted the same knowingly fully
well that, the Tempo Traveler was not having valid permit and
fitness certificate to ply on public road and therefore, the same
is amounts to violation of the permit and also the Motor
Vehicles Act, if the policy is produced and hence, it is not liable
to pay any compensation.
SCCH-7 10 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
h) A sum of Rupees 30,00,000/- claimed by
Petitioners is highly excessive, arbitrary and disproportionate
to the age, avocation and income of the deceased and the
Petitioners are trying to make a windfall out of an unfortunate
accident.
i) The Petitioners are not entitled to receive any
interest on loss of dependency and if the compensation is
granted on any other heads the rate of interest should not
exceed more than 6% in view of the several recent decisions of
our Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Hence, prayed to dismiss
the petition with exemplary costs.
7. The Respondent No.2 inter-alia denying the entire
case of the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.2675/2014, has further
contended as follows;
a) The petition is not maintainable either in law or on
facts.
b) The particulars furnished by the Petitioners are
insufficient to file an effective statement of objections.
c) He is the owner of the vehicle Tempo Traveler
bearing No.KA-50-6483 alleged to have been involved in the
alleged accident. However, he is not liable for any damages as
he has insured the said vehicle Tempo Traveler bearing No.KA-
50-6483 with the first Respondent vide Policy/Certificate No.
SCCH-7 11 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
141573240000072 and the same was valid from 27.05.2013
till midnight of 26.05.2014 and the Insurance Policy stood in
the name of him and hence, he is not liable to pay
compensation and the Insurance Company, i.e., the 1st
Respondent is liable to pay the compensation, that may be
awarded by this Hon'ble Court.
d) The Petitioners are not entitled to any claims. The
compensation claimed is even otherwise excessive, exorbitant,
imaginary and arbitrary and has no basis and it is not liable to
pay the same. The Petitioners have already filed another
M.V.C.No.1201/2014 before the SCCH-7, the same has not
been disclosed before this Hon'ble Court. By suppression of
facts, the present petition being filed. On this ground also, the
present petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, prayed to
dismiss the petition.
8. The Petitioner in M.V.C.No.2676/2014 has filed the
said petition as against the Respondents No.1 and 2 under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, praying to award
compensation of Rupees 5,00,000/- with interest at the rate of
12% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
9. The brief averments of the Petitioner's case in
M.V.C. No.2676/2014 are as follows;
a) He and other family members were gone to
Tamilnadu in a Tempo Traveller bearing Registration No.KA-
SCCH-7 12 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
50-6483, which belongs to the Respondent No.2. After visited
some places at Tamilnadu, on 03.09.2013 in the early morning
at 12.10 a.m., they were returning from Tamilnadu towards
Bangalore, when they reached near Thengalapalyam Deviation
Road, Selam Namakkal N. H. Road, at that time, the driver of
Tempo Traveller drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent
manner with high speed so as to endangering to human life
and he lost the control on his vehicle, due to which, the vehicle
ran over on the Center median of the road and within no time,
the vehicle was toppled on the road. Due to the impact of the
accident, he and all of his relatives were sustained grievous
injuries and he sustained grievous injury to his shoulder and
other parts of the body.
b) Immediately after the accident, he was taken to the
Government M.K. Medical College and Hospital, Salem and
from there shifted to Sagar Hospital at Tilaknagar, Jayanagar
Extension, Bangalore, where, he admitted as an inpatient for 2
days and for the treatment and medicines, he incurred a
substantial medical expenses of Rupees 45,000/- towards
medicines treatment and Rupees 25,000/- for conveyance etc.,
c) At the time of accident, he was working as a BBMP
Engineer and he was drawing a salary of Rupees 40,000/- per
month. With the help of the earnings of him, he used to
maintain the affairs of the entire family. Due to the accident
SCCH-7 13 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
and accidental injuries, he and his entire family is put to great
financial loss and mental agony.
d) The accident in question was due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the Tempo Traveler bearing
Registration No.KA-50-5483.
e) The 1st Respondent being the insurer and the
second Respondent being the owner of the said offending
vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation
to him. Hence, this petition.
10. In response to the notice, the Respondent No.1 has
appeared before this Tribunal through its Learned Counsel.
But, initially, inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the
Respondent No.1 had not filed the written statement. Later, as
per the Order dated 25.11.2014 passed on I.A.No.I, the written
statement filed by the Respondent No.1 is taken on file.
11. In response to the notice, the Respondent No.2 has
appeared before this Tribunal through his Learned Counsel
and has filed the written statement.
12. The Respondent No.1 inter-alia denying the entire
case of the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.2676/2014, has further
contended as follows;
SCCH-7 14 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
a) The petition for grant of compensation on account
of the injuries sustained in an accident that on 03.09.2013
between 4 to 6 a.m., involving the Tempo Traveller bearing
No.KA-50-6483 is not maintainable either in law or on facts
and the same is liable to be rejected in limine.
b) No such policy was issued covering the Tempo
Traveller bearing No.KA-50-6483.
c) The owner of the vehicle, i.e., the 2nd Respondent
has not submitted the claim form and other documents, like
policy, RC, DL, Permit, etc., for verification. Hence, it is
permitted to file the additional written statement as and when
the above requirements are submitted by the owner of the
vehicle on question.
d) The driver of the Tempo Traveller drove the same
without having a valid and effective driving licence, which is in
contravention of the policy condition and also the Motor
Vehicles Act and the owner of the vehicle entrusted the said
vehicle knowing fully well that, the driver was not having a
valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in
question and thereby, there is clear violation of the policy
terms and condition of the policy and also the Motor Vehicles
Act. If the owner or the Petitioner produced the better policy
particulars and hence, it is not liable to pay any compensation.
SCCH-7 15 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
e) If the owner of the vehicle, the 2nd Respondent not
contesting the claim petition or he is placed exparte before the
Court or he has colluded with the Petitioner, then, it be
permitted to contest the matter on all the grounds available
under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
f) It may be true that, the accident in question has
occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the
Tempo Traveller by its driver.
g) The driver of the Tempo Traveller drove the same
without having a valid and effective driving licence, which is in
contravention of the policy condition and also the Motor
Vehicles Act, if the policy particulars are produced by the
Petitioner. The owner of the Tempo Traveller willfully entrusted
the vehicle, knowing fully well that, the driver of the vehicle
was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the
vehicle in question and further the owner of the Tempo
Traveler willfully entrusted the same knowingly fully well that,
the Tempo Traveler was not having a valid permit and fitness
certificate to ply on public road and therefore, the same is
amounts to violation of the permit and also the Motor Vehicles
Act, if the policy is produced and hence, it is not liable to pay
any compensation.
h) A sum of Rupees 5,00,000/- claimed by the
Petitioner is highly excessive, arbitrary and disproportionate to
the nature of injuries sustained in the accident and the
SCCH-7 16 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
Petitioner is trying to make a windfall out of an unfortunate
accident.
i) The Petitioner is not entitled to receive any interest
on future loss of earnings and if the compensation is granted
on any other heads, the rate of interest should not exceed more
than 6% in view of the several recent decisions of our Hon'ble
High Court of Karnataka. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition
with exemplary costs.
13. The Respondent No.2 inter-alia denying the entire
case of the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.2676/2014, has further
contended as follows;
a) The petition is not maintainable either in law or on
facts.
b) The particulars furnished by the Petitioner are
insufficient to file an effective statement of objections.
c) He is the owner of the vehicle Tempo Traveler
bearing No.KA-50-6483 alleged to have been involved in the
alleged accident. However, he is not liable for any damages as
he has insured the said vehicle Tempo Traveler bearing No.KA-
50-6483 with the first Respondent vide Policy/Certificate No.
141573240000072 and the same was valid from 27.05.2013
till midnight of 26.05.2014 and the Insurance Policy stood in
the name of him and hence, he is not liable to pay
SCCH-7 17 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
compensation and the Insurance Company, i.e., the 1st
Respondent is liable to pay the compensation, that may be
awarded by this Hon'ble Court.
d) The Petitioner is not entitled to any claims. The
compensation claimed is even otherwise excessive, exorbitant,
imaginary and arbitrary and has no basis and he is not liable
to pay the same. The Petitioner has already filed another
M.V.C. No.1201/2014 before the SCCH-7, the same has not
been disclosed before this Hon'ble Court, by suppression of
facts, the present petition being filed. On this ground also, the
present petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, prayed to
dismiss the petition.
14. The Petitioner in M.V.C.No.2677/2014 has filed the
said petition as against the Respondents No.1 and 2 under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, praying to award
compensation of Rupees 3,00,000/- with interest at the rate of
12% per annum from the date of the petition till realization.
15. The brief averments of the Petitioner's case in
M.V.C. No.2677/2014 are as follows;
a) The injured and her family members were went to
Tamilnadu in a Tempo Traveller bearing Registration No.KA-
50-6483, which belongs to the Respondent No.2. After visited
some places at Tamilnadu, on 03.09.2013 in the early morning
at 12.10 a.m., they were returning from Tamilnadu towards
SCCH-7 18 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
Bangalore, when they reached near Thengalapalyam Diversion
Road, Selam Namakkal N.H. Road, at that time, the driver of
Tempo Traveller drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent
manner with high speed so as to endangering to human life
and he lost the control on his vehicle and due to which, the
vehicle ran over on the Center median of the road and within
no time, the vehicle was toppled on the road. Due to the
impact of the accident, she sustained grievous injuries to all
over the body.
b) Immediately after the accident, she was taken to
the Government M.K. Medical College and Hospital, Salem and
from there, shifted to Sagar Hospital at Tilaknagar, Jayanagar
Extension, Bangalore, where, she admitted as an inpatient
from 03.09.2013 to till the day and there, the Doctors
conducted surgeries to her fractures, for all these, she incurred
a substantial medical expenses of Rupees 1,00,000/- towards
medicines, treatment and Rupees 50,000/- for conveyance
etc.,
c) At the time of accident, she was a student. Due to
the accident and accidental injuries, she and her entire family
is put to great financial loss and mental agony.
d) The accident occurred solely due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the Tempo Traveler bearing
Registration No.KA-50-5483, hence, Vennandur Police have
SCCH-7 19 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
registered a case as against the driver of said offending Tempo
Traveller under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304 A of IPC.
e) The 1st Respondent being the insurer and the
second Respondent being the owner of the said offending
vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation
to her. Hence, this petition.
16. In response to the notice, the Respondent No.1 has
appeared before this Tribunal through its Learned Counsel.
But, initially, inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the
Respondent No.1 had not filed the written statement. Later, as
per the Order dated 25.11.2014 passed on I.A.No.I, the written
statement filed by the Respondent No.1 is taken on file.
17. In response to the notice, the Respondent No.2 has
appeared before this Tribunal through his Learned Counsel
and has filed the written statement.
18. The Respondent No.1 inter-alia denying the entire
case of the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.2677/2014, has further
contended as follows;
a) The petition for grant of compensation on account
of the injuries sustained in an accident that on 03.09.2013
between 4 to 6 a.m., involving the Tempo Traveller bearing
No.KA-50-6483 is not maintainable either in law or on facts.
SCCH-7 20 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
b) No such policy was issued covering the Tempo
Traveller bearing No.KA-50-6483.
c) The owner of the vehicle, i.e., the 2nd Respondent
has not submitted the claim form and other documents, like,
policy, RC, DL, Permit, etc., for verification. Hence, it is
permitted to file the additional written statement as and when
the above requirements are submitted by the owner of the
vehicle on question.
d) The driver of the Tempo Traveller drove the same
without having a valid and effective driving licence, which is in
contravention of the policy condition and also the Motor
Vehicles Act and the owner of the vehicle entrusted the said
vehicle knowing fully well that, the driver was not having valid
and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question and
thereby, there is clear violation of the policy terms and
condition of the policy and also the Motor Vehicles Act, if the
owner or the Petitioner produced the better policy particular
and hence, it is not liable to pay any compensation.
e) If the owner of the vehicle, the 2nd Respondent not
contesting the claim petition or he is placed exparte before the
Court or he has colluded with the Petitioner, then, it be
permitted to contest the matter on all the grounds available
under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
SCCH-7 21 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
f) It may be true that, the accident in question has
occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the
Tempo Traveller by its driver.
g) The driver of the Tempo Traveller drove the same
without having a valid and effective driving licence, which is in
contravention of the policy condition and also the Motor
Vehicles Act, if the policy particulars are produced by the
Petitioner. The owner of the Tempo Traveller willfully entrusted
the vehicle, knowing fully well that, the driver of the vehicle
was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the
vehicle in question and further, the owner of the Tempo
Traveler willfully entrusted the same knowingly fully well that,
the Tempo Traveler was not having a valid permit and fitness
certificate to ply on public road and therefore, the same is
amounts to violation of the permit and also the Motor Vehicles
Act, if the policy is produced and hence, it is not liable to pay
any compensation.
h) A sum of Rupees 3,00,000/- claimed by Petitioner
is highly excessive, arbitrary and disproportionate to the
nature of injuries sustained in the accident and the Petitioner
is trying to make a windfall out of an unfortunate accident.
i) The Petitioner is not entitled to receive any interest
on future loss of earnings and if the compensation is granted
on any other heads, the rate of interest should not exceed more
than 6% in view of the several recent decisions of our Hon'ble
SCCH-7 22 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
High Court of Karnataka. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition
with exemplary costs.
19. The Respondent No.2 inter-alia denying the entire
case of the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.2677/2014, has further
contended as follows;
a) The petition is not maintainable either in law or on
facts.
b) The particulars furnished by the Petitioner are
insufficient to file an effective statement of objections.
c) He is the owner of the vehicle Tempo Traveler
bearing No.KA-50-6483 alleged to have been involved in the
alleged accident. However, it is not liable for any damages as
he has insured the said vehicle Tempo Traveler bearing No.KA-
50-6483 with the first Respondent vide Policy/Certificate No.
141573240000072 and the same was valid from 27.05.2013
till midnight of 26.05.2014 and the Insurance Policy stood in
the name of him and hence, he is not liable to pay
compensation and the Insurance Company, i.e., the 1st
Respondent is liable to pay the compensation, that may be
awarded by this Hon'ble Court.
d) The Petitioner is not entitled to any claims. The
compensation claimed is even otherwise excessive, exorbitant,
imaginary and arbitrary and has no basis and he is not liable
SCCH-7 23 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
to pay the same. The Petitioner has already filed another
M.V.C. No.1200/2014 before the SCCH-7, same has not been
disclosed before this Hon'ble Court, by suppression of facts,
the present petition being filed, on this ground also, the
present petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, prayed to
dismiss the petition.
20. The Petitioner in M.V.C.No.2678/2014 has filed the
said petition as against the Respondents No.1 and 2 under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, praying to award
compensation of Rupees 40,00,000/- with interest at the rate
of 12% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
21. The brief averments of the Petitioner's case in
M.V.C. No.2678/2014 are as follows;
a) Injured and her family members are gone to
Tamilnadu in a Tempo Traveller bearing Registration No.KA-
50-6483, which belongs to the Respondent No.2. After visited
some places at Tamilnadu, on 03.09.2013 in the early morning
at 12.10 a.m., they were returning from Tamilnadu towards
Bangalore, when they reached near Thengalapalyam Dervision
Road, Selam Namakkal N.H. Road, at that time, the driver of
Tempo Traveller drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent
manner with high speed so as to endangering to human life
and he lost the control on his vehicle, due to which, the vehicle
ran over on the Center median of the road and within no time,
the vehicle was toppled on the road, Due to the impact of the
SCCH-7 24 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
accident, she sustained grievous injuries and she sustained
grievous injuries to all over the body.
b) Immediately after the accident, she was taken to
the Government M.K. Medical College and Hospital, Salem and
from there, shifted to Sagar Hospital at Tilaknagar, Jayanagar
Extension, Bangalore, where, she admitted as an inpatient
from 03.09.2013 to till today and there, the Doctors conducted
surgeries to her fractures, for all these, she incurred a
substantial medical expenses of Rupees 20 lakhs for
medicines, treatment and Rupees 5,00,000/- for conveyance
etc.,
c) At the time of accident, she was a businessmen by
avocation and as a businessmen, she was earning a sum of
Rupees 15,00,000/- per annum. Due to the accident and
accidental injuries, she is unable to do her work, hence,
thereby she and her entire family is put to great financial loss
and mental agony.
d) The accident in question was due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the Tempo Traveler bearing
Registration No.KA-50-5483. Hence, Vennandur Police have
registered a case as against the driver of said offending Tempo
Traveller under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304 A of IPC.
e) The 1st Respondent being the insurer and the
second Respondent being the owner of the said offending
SCCH-7 25 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation
to her. Hence, this petition.
22. In response to the notice, the Respondent No.1 has
appeared before this Tribunal through its Learned Counsel.
But, initially, inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the
Respondent No.1 had not filed the written statement. Later, as
per the Order dated 25.11.2014 passed on I.A.No.I, the written
statement filed by the Respondent No.1 is taken on file.
23. In response to the notice, the Respondent No.2 has
appeared before this Tribunal through his Learned Counsel
and has filed the written statement.
24. The Respondent No.1 inter-alia denying the entire
case of the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.2678/2014, has further
contended as follows;
a) The petition for grant of compensation on account
of the injuries sustained in an accident that on 03.09.2013
between 4 to 6 a.m., involving the Tempo Traveller bearing
No.KA-50-6483 is not maintainable either in law or on facts.
b) No such policy was issued covering the Tempo
Traveller bearing No.KA-50-6483.
c) The owner of the vehicle, i.e., the 2nd Respondent
has not submitted the claim form and other documents, like,
SCCH-7 26 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
policy, RC, DL, Permit, etc., for verification. Hence, it is
permitted to file the additional written statement as and when
the above requirements are submitted by the owner of the
vehicle on question.
d) The driver of the Tempo Traveller drove the same
without having a valid and effective driving licence, which is in
contravention of the policy condition and also the Motor
Vehicles Act and the owner of the vehicle entrusted the said
vehicle knowing fully well that, the driver was not having a
valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in
question and thereby, there is clear violation of the policy
terms and conditions of the policy and also the Motor Vehicles
Act, if the owner or the Petitioner produced the better policy
particulars and hence, it is not liable to pay any compensation.
e) If the owner of the vehicle, the 2nd Respondent not
contesting the claim petition or he is placed exparte before the
Court or he has colluded with the Petitioner, then, it be
permitted to contest the matter on all the grounds available
under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
f) It may be true that, the accident in question has
occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the
Tempo Traveller by its driver.
g) The driver of the Tempo Traveller drove the same
without having a valid and effective driving licence, which is in
SCCH-7 27 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
contravention of the policy condition and also the Motor
Vehicles Act, if the policy particulars are produced by the
Petitioner. The owner of the Tempo Traveller willfully entrusted
the vehicle, knowing fully well that, the driver of the vehicle
was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the
vehicle in question and further the owner of the Tempo
Traveler willfully entrusted the same knowingly fully well that,
the Tempo Traveler was not having a valid permit and fitness
certificate to ply on public road and therefore, the same
amounts to violation of the permit and also the Motor Vehicles
Act, if the policy is produced and hence, it is not liable to pay
any compensation.
h) A sum of Rupees 40,00,000/- claimed by Petitioner
is highly excessive, arbitrary and disproportionate to the
nature of injuries sustained in the accident and the Petitioner
is trying to make a windfall out of an unfortunate accident.
i) The Petitioner is not entitled to receive any interest
on future loss of earnings and if the compensation is granted
on any other heads, the rate of interest should not exceed more
than 6% in view of the several recent decisions of our Hon'ble
High Court of Karnataka. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition
with exemplary costs.
25. The Respondent No.2 inter-alia denying the entire
case of the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.2678/2014, has further
contended as follows;
SCCH-7 28 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
a) The petition is not maintainable either in law or on
facts.
b) The particulars furnished by the Petitioner are
insufficient to file an effective statement of objections.
c) He is the owner of the vehicle Tempo Traveler
bearing No.KA-50-6483 alleged to have been involved in the
alleged accident. However, he is not liable for any damages as
he has insured the said vehicle Tempo Traveler bearing No.KA-
50-6483 with the first Respondent vide Policy/Certificate No.
141573240000072 and the same was valid from 27.05.2013
till midnight of 26.05.2014 and the Insurance Policy stood in
the name of him and hence, it is not liable to pay
compensation and the Insurance Company, i.e., the 1st
Respondent is liable to pay the compensation, that may be
awarded by this Hon'ble Court.
d) The Petitioner is not entitled to any claims. The
compensation claimed is even otherwise excessive, exorbitant,
imaginary and arbitrary and has no basis and it is not liable to
pay the same. The Petitioner has already filed another M.V.C.
No.1202/2014 before the SCCH-7, same has not been
disclosed before this Hon'ble Court, by suppression of facts,
the present petition being filed. Hence, prayed to dismiss the
petition.
SCCH-7 29 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
26. Based on the above said pleadings, I have framed
the following Issues;
ISSUES
In M.V.C.No.2675/2014
1. Whether the Petitioners prove
that they are the dependents and
legal representatives of deceased
Smt. Parinitha. K.?
2. Whether the Petitioners prove
that, the accident occurred due
to rash and negligent driving of
the Private Tempo Traveller
bearing Reg.No.KA-50-6483 by
its driver and Smt.Parinitha. K.
died due to the injuries
sustained in the accident?
3. Whether the Petitioners are
entitled to compensation? If so,
how much and from whom?
4. What Order?
In M.V.C.No.2676/2014
1. Whether the Petitioner proves
that the accident occurred due to
rash and negligent driving of the
Tempo Traveller bearing
Reg.No.KA-50-6483 by its driver
and in the said accident, he
sustained injuries?
SCCH-7 30 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled
for compensation? If so, how
much and from whom?
3. What Order?
In M.V.C.No.2677/2014
1. Whether the Petitioner proves
that, the accident occurred due
to rash and negligent driving of
the Tempo Traveller bearing
Reg.No.KA-50-6483 by its driver
and in the said accident, she
sustained injuries?
2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled
for compensation? If so, how
much and from whom?
3. What Order?
In M.V.C.No.2678/2014
1. Whether the Petitioner proves
that, the accident occurred due
to rash and negligent driving of
the Tempo Traveller bearing
Reg.No.KA-50-6483 by its driver
and in the said accident, she
sustained injuries?
2. Whether the Petitioner is
entitled for compensation? If so,
how much and from whom?
3. What Order?
SCCH-7 31 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
27. In order to prove their case, the Petitioners in
M.V.C. No.2675/2014 have examined the Petitioner No.1 as
P.W.1 by filing an affidavit as his examination-in-chief and
have placed reliance upon Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15, the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.2676/2014 himself has been examined as P.W.2 by
filing an affidavit as his examination-in-chief and has placed
reliance upon Ex.P.16, the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.2677/2014
has examined her guardian as P.W.3 by filing an affidavit as
his examination-in-chief and has placed reliance upon Ex.P.17
to Ex.P.19 and the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.2678/2014 herself
has been examined as P.W.4 and has also examined one
witness as P.W.5 by filing the affidavits as their examination-
in-chief and has placed reliance upon Ex.P.20 to Ex.P.31. On
the other hand, the Respondent No.1 has examined its Deputy
Manager as R.W.1 by filing an affidavit as his examination-in-
chief and has placed reliance upon Ex.R.1. On the other hand,
the Respondent No.2 has not adduced any evidence on his
behalf.
28. Heard the arguments.
29. My answers to the above said Issues are as follows;
In M.V.C.No.2675/2014
Issue No.1 : Partly in the Affirmative,
Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.3 : Partly in the Affirmative,
SCCH-7 32 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
The Petitioner is
entitled for global
compensation of Rupees
1,90,000/- with interest at
the rate of 8% p.a. from
the date of the petition till
the date of payment, from
the Respondent No.1.
Issue No.4 : As per the final Order,
In M.V.C.No.2676/2014
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative,
The Petitioner is
entitled for global
compensation of Rupees
25,000/- with interest at
the rate of 8% p.a. from
the date of the petition till
the date of payment, from
the Respondent No.1.
Issue No.3 : As per the final Order,
In M.V.C.No.2677/2014
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative,
The Petitioner is
entitled for compensation
of Rupees 1,13,364/- with
interest at the rate of 8%
SCCH-7 33 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
p.a. from the date of the
petition till the date of
payment, from the
Respondent No.1.
Issue No.3 : As per the final Order,
In M.V.C.No.2678/2014
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative,
The Petitioner is entitled
for compensation of Rupees
8,45,500/- with interest at
the rate of 8% p.a.
(excluding future medical
expenses of Rupees
20,000/-) from the date of
the petition till the date of
payment, from the
Respondent No.1.
Issue No.3 : As per the final Order,
for the following,
REASONS
30. ISSUE NO.1 IN M.V.C.No.2675/2014 :- The
P.W.1, who is the Petitioner No.1 in M.V.C.No.2675/2014 has
stated in his examination-in-chief that, deceased Smt.
Parinitha. K. is his wife, he and his wife and children were
went to Tamilnadu in a Tempo Traveller bearing Registration
No.KA-50-6483 along with other family members to visit at
SCCH-7 34 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
Tamilnadu and after visited some place at Tamil Nadu, they
are returning to Bangalore in the said Tempo Traveller on
03.09.2013 at 12.10 a.m., near Thengal Palyam Diversion
Road, Selam Namakkal N.H. Road, the said Tempo Traveller
met with an accident by its driver itself and due to the impact,
his wife Smt. Parinitha. K. sustained grievous injuries all over
the body and she succumbed to the injuries on the spot. He
has further stated that, Vennandur Police have registered the
case as against the driver of the Tempo Traveller under
Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of IPC. He has further
stated that, they are all depending upon his wife.
31. The Petitioners have produced Ex.P.1 FIR along
with translation, Ex.P.2 Complaint along with translation,
Ex.P.6 Postmortem Certificate, Ex.P.7 List of Witnesses along
with Charge Sheet and its Translation, Ex.P.8 Aadhaar Card
relating to K. Parinitha, Ex.P.10 Aadhaar Card relating to
Petitioner No.2 B.M.Lekhan and Ex.P.11 Aadhaar Card relating
to Petitioner No.3 B.M. Vismitha. On perusal of the contents of
the said material documents, it clearly goes to show that, the
Petitioner No.1 is a husband, the Petitioner No.2 is a major son
and the Petitioner No.3 is a minor daughter of the deceased
Smt.Parinitha.K., who succumbed to the accidental injuries on
the accidental spot itself, which was taken place on
03.09.2013 at 12.10 a.m., near Thengal Palyam Diversion
Road, Selam Namakkal N.H. Road, when she was traveling in
the offending Tempo Traveller bearing Registration No.KA-50-
SCCH-7 35 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
6483. As the Petitioner No.1 is a husband, the Petitioner No.2
is a major son and the Petitioner No.3 is a minor daughter,
they are legal representatives of the said deceased
Smt.Parinitha.K. But, based on the same, it cannot be said
that, all the Petitioners are the dependents of the said
deceased, as, the P.W.1 in his cross-examination has stated
that, his son is studying in 2nd year Engineering and his
daughter is studying in 1st PUC and his wife is studied up to
PUC and now, he is receiving salary of Rupees 40,000/- per
month. The Petitioner No.1 is a father of the Petitioners No.2
and 3. The Petitioner No.2 is a major and the Petitioner No.3 is
a minor daughter of the Petitioner No.1. The Petitioner No.1
being a father has to look after the Petitioner No.3. Admittedly,
the Petitioner No.1 is having his own income. Therefore, the
Petitioners cannot be considered as the dependents of the said
deceased Smt.Parinitha.K. But, they are only considered as
legal representatives of the said deceased. Accordingly, I
answered Issue No.1 in M.V.C.No.2675/2014 partly in the
Affirmative.
32. ISSUE NO.2 IN M.V.C.No.2675/2014 and ISSUES
NO.1 in M.V.C.No.2676/2014, M.V.C.No.2677/2014 and
M.V.C.No.2678/2014 :- The P.W.1, who is the Petitioner No.1
in M.V.C.No.2675/2014 has stated in his examination-in-chief
that, the deceased Sri. Parinitha.K., who is his wife, he and his
wife and children were went to Tamil Nadu in a Tempo
Traveller bearing Registration No.KA-50-6483 along with his
SCCH-7 36 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
other family members to visit the Temples at Tamilnadu, after
visited some place at Tamil Nadu, they are returning to
Bangalore in the said Tempo Traveller on 03.09.2013 at about
12.10 a.m., the driver of the said offending Tempo drove his
vehicle in a rash and negligent manner in a high speed, when
they reached near Thengalapalyam Deviation Road, Selam -
Namakkal Road, due to the high speed, the driver of the
vehicle had lost the control on his vehicle and due to which,
the vehicle, which they proceeding has ran over on the centre
median of the road and within no time, the vehicle was toppled
on the road and due to the impact of the accident, his wife
Smt. Parinitha.K. sustained grievous injuries to all over the
body and she succumbed to the injuries on the spot. He has
further stated that, the accident occurred solely due to the
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said offending
vehicle Tempo Traveller bearing Registration No.KA-50-6483
and hence, the Vennandur Police have registered the case as
against the driver of the Tempo Traveller under Sections 279,
337, 338 and 304(A) of IPC.
33. The P.W.1 has clearly stated in his cross-
examination that, Tempo Traveller was hired by one Ajay and
on that day, in the said Tempo Traveller, he, his son Lekhan,
daughter Vismith Gowda, his wife Parinitha, his mother-in-law
Indira, one Appaji Gowda, Ajay, Prema, Ajay wife Geetha were
traveling. He has further stated that, only driver was in the
said vehicle at the time of accident and there was no cleaner.
SCCH-7 37 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
He has further stated that, he has not lodged the complaint in
respect of the alleged accident.
34. To consider the oral version of P.W.1, the
Petitioners in M.V.C.No.2675/2014 have produced Ex.P.1 FIR
along with translation, Ex.P.2 Complaint along with
Translation, Ex.P.3 Spot Hand Sketch, Ex.P.4 Spot Mahazar
along with Translation, Ex.P.5 MVI Report, Ex.P.6 Postmortem
Report and Ex.P.7 List of Witnesses along with Charge Sheet
and its Translation.
35. The P.W.2, who is the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.2676/2014, has also stated the same evidence of
P.W.1 in his examination-in-chief. He has further stated that,
due to the impact of the accident, he sustained grievous injury
to his shoulder and other parts of the body, i.e., dislocation of
right shoulder joint. He has further stated that, immediately
after the accident, he was taken to the Government M.K.
Medical College and Hospital, Salem and from there shifted to
Sagar Hospital at Tilaknagar, Jayanagar Extension Bangalore,
wherein, he was admitted as an inpatient for 2 days.
36. The P.W.2 has clearly stated in his cross-
examination that, he has taken first-aid treatment at Tamil
Nadu and on 03.09.2013, the accident is taken place.
37. To corroborate his oral version, the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.2676/2014 has produced Ex.P.16 Wound Certificate.
SCCH-7 38 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
38. The P.W.3, who is the guardian of the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.2677/2014, has also stated the same evidence of
P.W.1 and P.W.2, in his examination-in-chief. He has further
stated that, the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.2677/2014 is his
daughter and due to the impact of the accident, his daughter
Kum. Vismitha Gowda sustained grievous injury to her face
and other part of the body, i.e., sutured lacerated wound 15
cms in length over fore head and lacerated Upper Lip 4 x 0.5
cms. He has further stated that, immediately after the
accident, she was taken to the Government M.K. Medical
College and Hospital, Salem and from there shifted to Sagar
Hospital at Tilaknagar, Jayanagar Extension, Bangalore,
wherein, she admitted as an inpatient from 03.09.2013 to
04.09.2013.
39. The P.W.3 has also stated the same evidence of
P.W.1, which is stated in the cross-examination.
40. To corroborate the oral version of P.W.3, the
Petitioner in M.V.C.No.2677/2014 has produced Ex.P.17
Wound Certificate and Ex.P.18 Discharge Summary.
41. The P.W.4, who is the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.2678/2014, has also stated the same evidence of
P.W.1 to P.W.3, in her examination-in-chief. She has further
stated that, due to the impact of the accident, she has
sustained grievous injury to her shoulder and other parts of
the body, i.e., posterior column fracture Acetabulum right hip,
SCCH-7 39 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
with right iliac wing fracture and comminuted fracture of
proximal right humerus. She has further stated that,
immediately after the accident, she was taken to the
Government M.K. Medical College and Hospital, Salem and
from there, shifted to Sagar Hospital at Tilaknagar, Jayanagar
Extension, Bangalore, wherein, she admitted as an inpatient
from 03.09.2013 to 23.09.2013.
42. The P.W.4 has further stated in her cross-
examination that, at the time of accident, she and her
relatives, totally, 11 persons were traveling in the offending
Tempo Traveller and their names are, herself Indira, Mahadev,
Parinitha, Lekhan, Vismitha, Prema, Appaji Gowda, Ajay,
Shripriya, Geetha and Divya. She has further stated that, she
was admitted as an inpatient in the Hospital for one month
and Dr. Sharathchandra had given treatment to her in the
Hospital.
43. To corroborate her oral version, the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.2678/2014 has produced Ex.P.20 Wound Certificate
and Ex.P.21 Discharge Summary.
44. The Petitioner in M.V.C.No.2678/2014 has also
examined the treated Doctor as P.W.5, who has stated in his
examination-in-chief that, the Petitioner came with alleged
history of RTA and she complained of pain in right shoulder
and right hip and unable to move her right upper limb and
bear weight on right lower limb and first-aid was done at
SCCH-7 40 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
nearby local Hospital and later, shifted to Sagar Hospital for
further treatment and admitted on 03.09.2013. He has further
stated that, on examination, Vitals were stable, right shoulder
Tenderness over joint line, deformity and swelling present,
movements painful and restricted, no neurovascular deficits
and right hip and ILIAC region - joint line tenderness present,
deformity and swelling present, movement pain full and
restricted, no neurovascular deficits and the she was stabilized
with antibiotics, Analgesics and fluids and further
investigation done. He has further stated that, X-ray and CT
Scan revealed posterior column fracture of right Acetabulam
and fracture of right ILIAC wing, 4 parts comminuted fracture
of right proximal humerus.
45. The P.W.5 has stated in his cross-examination that,
the Petitioner was type - 4 communited fracture of right
proximal humerus.
46. The P.W.5 has also produced Ex.P.27 Inpatient
Record, Ex.P.28 Inpatient Record, Ex.P.29 Outpatient Record,
Ex.P.30 X-ray Films 14 in numbers and Ex.P.31 CT Scan
Films 10 in numbers.
47. The contents of Ex.P.1 FIR and Ex.P.2 Complaint
clearly disclosed that, on 03.09.2013, deceased Smt. Parinitha.
K. and the Petitioners in all the cases were traveling in the
offending Tempo Traveller bearing Registration No.KA-50-6483
along with their other family members to visit temples at
SCCH-7 41 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
Tamilnadu and when they were returning to Bangalore in the
said Tempo Traveller on 03.09.2013 at about 12.10 a.m., due
to very high speed, rash and negligent manner driving the
offending Tempo Traveller by its driver, the road traffic
accident was taken place near Thengalapalyam Deviation
Road, Selem - Namakkal Road and due to the said impact of
the driving of the driver of the Tempo Traveller, the driver lost
control over the offending Tempo Traveller and due to which, it
ran over the centre median of the road and toppled on the road
and Sri. Appaji Gowda, who was inmate of the said Tempo
Traveller and eye witness had lodged the complaint before the
Vennadur Police as against the driver of the offending Tempo
Traveller and based on the said Ex.P.2 Complaint, the said
Police have registered a criminal case as against the driver of
the offending Tempo Traveller under Crime No.187/2013 for
the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) of
IPC. It is also clear from the contents of Ex.P.1 FIR and Ex.P.2
Complaint that, there is no delay as such in lodging Ex.P.2
Complaint by the eye witness in respect of the said road traffic
accident.
48. The contents of Ex.P.3 Spot Hand Sketch, Ex.P.4
Mahazar and its translation and Ex.P.5 MVI Report further
clearly disclosed that, the entire negligence is on the part of the
driver of the offending Tempo Traveller bearing Registration
No.KA-50-6483, who was driving the said offending Tempo
Traveller with very high speed, rash and negligent manner at
SCCH-7 42 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
the time of accident and due to which, he was lost control over
the offending Tempo Traveller and due to which, the offending
Tempo Traveller was proceeding on centre median of the
accidental road, which was toppled on the road. The damages
caused to the offending Tempo Traveller bearing Registration
No.KA-50-6483 are clearly mentioned in Ex.P.5 MVI Report,
which clearly disclosed about the terrific impact of the said
road traffic accident.
49. The contents of Ex.P.6 Postmortem Certificate
clearly disclosed that, due to the accidental injuries, which
caused on 03.09.2013 at about 12.10 a.m., in the road traffic
accident, which occurred by the driver of the offending Tempo
Traveller bearing Registration No.KA-50-6483, deceased
Parinitha.K. succumbed to the accidental injuries on the
accidental spot itself. It is also clearly mentioned in Ex.P.6
Postmortem Certificate that, the deceased wound appear to
have died of effects of multiple injuries. From this, it is made
crystal clear that, due to the accidental injuries itself, the
deceased Parinitha.K. succumbed on the accidental spot itself,
which was taken place on 03.09.2013 at 12.10 A.M.
50. The contents of Ex.P.16 Wound Certificate
disclosed that, in the said road traffic accident, the Petitioner
in M.V.C.No.2676/2014 had sustained dislocation of right
shoulder joint, which is grievous in nature and he took
treatment to the said accidental injuries at Sagar Hospital.
SCCH-7 43 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
From this, it is made crystal clear that, in the said road traffic
accident, the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.2676/2014 had sustained
one grievous injury.
51. The contents of Ex.P.17 Wound Certificate further
clearly disclosed that, the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.2677/2014
had sustained sutured lacerated wound 15 cms in length over
fore head and lacerated upper lip 4 X 0.5 cms, which are
grievous in nature and by admitting as an inpatient from
03.09.2013 to 04.09.2013, i.e., for 2 days, she took treatment
to the said accidental injuries at Sagar Hospital.
52. The contents of Ex.P.18 Discharge Summary
further clearly disclosed that, with alleged history of road
traffic accident on Namkal-Salem High Way while traveling in a
Tempo Taveller, which lost control and toppled, has taken first
and the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.2677/2014 has sustained facial
and lip laceration and by admitting as an inpatient from
03.09.2013 to 04.09.2013, i.e., for 2 days, she took treatment
to the said accidental injuries at Sagar Hospital. From the said
medical evidence, it is made crystal clear that, in the said road
traffic accident, the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.2677/2014 had
sustained two grievous injuries.
53. The contents of Ex.P.20 Wound Certificate, Ex.P.21
Discharge Summary, Ex.P.27 and Ex.P.28 Inpatient Records,
Ex.P.30 X-ray Films 14 in numbers and Ex.P.31 CT Scan
Films 10 in numbers further clearly disclosed that, in the said
SCCH-7 44 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
road traffic accident, the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.2678/2014
had sustained posterior column fracture acetabulum right hip
with right iliac wing fracture and communited fracture
proximal right humerus and by admitting as an inpatient from
03.09.2013 to 23.09.2013, i.e., for 21 days, she took treatment
to the said accidental injuries at Sagar Hospital. From these
medical documents, it is made crystal clear that, in the said
road traffic accident, the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.2678/2014
had sustained two grievous injuries.
54. The contents of List of Witnesses along with Charge
Sheet and its translation clearly disclosed that, due to very
high speed, rash and negligent manner of driving of the
offending Tempo Traveller bearing Registration No.KA-50-6483
by its driver itself, the said road traffic accident was taken
place on 03.09.2013 at 12.10 a.m., wherein, the deceased Smt.
Parinitha. K. and all the Petitioners were traveling and the said
accident was taken place near Thengalapalyam Deviation
Road, Selam - Namakkal Road and due to the said impact,
Smt. Parinitha succumbed to the accidental injuries on the
accidental spot itself and the Petitioners in
M.V.C.No.2676/2014, M.V.C.No.2677/2014 and
M.V.C.No.2678/2014 had sustained grievous injuries and as
such, after thorough investigation, the Investigation Officer has
filed a Charge Sheet as against the driver of the offending
Tempo Traveller bearing Registration No.KA-50-6483 for the
offences punishable under Section 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of
SCCH-7 45 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
IPC. The entire negligence is on the part of the driver of the
offending Tempo Traveller bearing Registration No.KA-50-6483
is clearly proved from the contents of Ex.P.7.
55. From the above said oral version and documentary
evidence adduced by all the Petitioners, it is clearly proved hat,
the entire negligence is on the part of the driver of the
offending Tempo Traveller bearing Registration No.KA-50-6483
and the said road traffic accident was taken place on
03.09.2013 at 12.10 a.m., wherein, the Smt.Parinitha.K.
succumbed to the injuries on the spot itself and the Petitioners
in M.V.C.No.2676/2014, M.V.C.No.2677/2014 and
M.V.C.No.2678/2014 had sustained grievous injuries. The very
involvement of the offending Tempo Traveller bearing
Registration No.KA-50-6483 as well as its driver in the said
road traffic accident is clearly proved. To deny or to discard the
same, nothing is available on record on behalf of the
Respondents, as, though the Respondent No.1 has been
examined its Deputy Manager as R.W.1, he has not stated
anything about the negligence act of driving of the offending
Tempo Traveller in his examination-in-chief. Further, the
R.W.1 in his cross-examination has clearly stated that, they
have not conducted the investigation relating to the alleged
accident through their Official Surveyor. Further, though the
Respondent No.2, who was a driver and registered owner of the
offending Temp Traveller has appeared and has filed the
Written Statement to contest the case of the Petitioners, he has
SCCH-7 46 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
not adduced any evidence on his behalf. Further, though the
P.W.1 to P.W.4 have been cross-examined by the Respondents
nothing has been elicited from their mouth to consider their
defence. Accordingly, I answered Issue No.2 in
M.V.C.No.2675/2014 and Issues No.1 in
M.V.C.No.2676/2014, M.V.C.No.2677/2014 and
M.V.C.No.2678/2014 in the Affirmative.
56. ISSUE NO.3 IN M.V.C.No.2675/2014 and ISSUES
NO.2 in M.V.C.No.2676/2014, M.V.C.No.2677/2014 and
M.V.C.No.2678/2014 :-
57. ISSUE NO.3 IN M.V.C.No.2675/2014 :- The date
of birth of the deceased is shown as 21.07.1976 in Ex.P.12
Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2006-2007,
Ex.P.13 Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2007-
2008, Ex.P.14 Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year
2008-2009 and Ex.P.15 Income tax Returns for the
Assessment Year 2009-2010. The date of accident is on
03.09.2013. From the said dates, it appears that, at the time of
accident, the deceased was 38 years old. Hence, the age of the
deceased is considered as 38 years at the time of accident.
58. The P.W.1 has stated that, his wife was hale and
healthy and was a businessman and she was doing Saree
Business and as a businessman, she was an Income Tax
Assesee and her PAN No. is AMEPP6831A. He has further
stated that, in the last Assessment Year 2006-2007, she
SCCH-7 47 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
declared income of Rupees 1,50,000/-, 2007-2008 declared
income of Rupees 2,00,000/-, 2008-2009 declared income of
Rupees 2,20,000/- and in the year 2009-2010 the gross total
income is Rupees 3,00,000/-. The Petitioners have produced
Ex.P.12 Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2006-
2007, Ex.P.13 Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year
2007-2008, Ex.P.14 Income Tax Returns for the Assessment
Year 2008-2009 and Ex.P.15 Income tax Returns for the
Assessment Year 2009-2010. No doubt, it is clear from the
contents of Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.15 Income Tax Returns that, the
deceased was doing business and she was an income tax
assesee and she has shown her Gross income in the year
2006-2007 a sum of Rupees 1,50,000/- and has paid income
tax of Rupees 510/-, in 2007-2008 of Rupees 2,00,000/- and
has paid income tax of Rupees 4,900/-, in 2008-2009 of
Rupees 2,20,000/- and has paid income tax of Rupees 2,100/-
and in 2009-2010 of Rupees 3,00,000/- and has paid income
tax of Rupees 6,164/-. But, only based on the said oral version
of P.W.1 as well as the contents of Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.15 Income
Tax Returns, it cannot be believed and accept the oral version
of P.W.1 that, at the time of accident, the deceased was doing
Saree Business, as, though the P.W.1 has stated about the
avocation and filing of income tax returns of his deceased wife,
he has not stated about specific income of the deceased at the
time of accident. Further, no scrap of paper has been produced
by the Petitioners to show that, at the time of accident, the
deceased was doing Saree Business. In this regard, the P.W.1
SCCH-7 48 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
has stated in his cross-examination that, his wife was not
having a licence in respect of her business and except Ex.P.12
to Ex.P.15, he has no other documents to show the business of
his deceased wife. Further, the Petitioners have not produced
the income tax returns for the Assessment Year 2010-2013,
which includes the date of accident, i.e., on 03.09.2013. Even,
the Petitioners have not produced the Bank Statement relating
to the deceased to show her actual yearly turn over and income
getting from the said business. Furthermore, the Petitioners
are the husband, major son, minor daughter of the deceased
respectively and this Tribunal has already come to the
conclusion that, the Petitioners are only the legal
representatives of the deceased and not dependents upon the
deceased. Under such circumstances, the contribution of the
income by the deceased to her family cannot be taken into for
consideration. More so, the P.W.1, who is a husband of the
deceased has clearly admitted that, he is a permanent
Government employee by receiving salary of Rupees 40,000/-
per month. Therefore, it is not necessary to assess the income
of the deceased at the time of accident.
59. The P.W.1 has stated that, they all are depending
upon the income of his wife, due to sudden and untimely death
of his wife, they are put to great financial loss and mental
agony.
SCCH-7 49 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
60. While answering Issue No.1, this Tribunal has
already observed and come to the conclusion that, the
Petitioner No.1 is a husband, the Petitioner No.2 is a major son
and the Petitioner No.3 is a minor daughter of the deceased
and they are only the legal representatives of the deceased
Smt.Parinitha. K. and they are not depending upon the said
deceased. Hence, the Petitioners are not entitled for any
compensation under the heads of loss of dependency. But, the
Petitioners are legal representatives of the said deceased and
hence, they are entitled for the compensation under the
following heads.
61. As per the principles laid down in the decision
reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 (Rajesh and Others V/s Rajbir
Singh and Others), loss of consortium to the Petitioner No.1,
who is a husband of the deceased, should be Rupees
1,00,000/-, loss of love and affection has to be compensated by
awarding Rupees 25,000/- and funeral expenses should be
Rupees 25,000/-. As this Tribunal has already observed that,
the Petitioner No.1 is a husband, the Petitioner No.2 is a major
son and the Petitioner No.3 is a minor daughter of the
deceased. Hence, the Petitioner No.1 is entitled for a sum of
Rupees 1,00,000/- towards Loss of consortium and all the
Petitioners are entitled for a sum of Rupees 25,000/- towards
loss of love and affection and Rupees 25,000/- towards funeral
expenses.
SCCH-7 50 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
62. As this Tribunal has already observed that, the
Petitioner No.1 is a husband, the Petitioner No.2 is a major son
and the Petitioner No.3 is a minor daughter of the deceased.
The Petitioners are residing at Bangalore. The accident was
taken place near Thengalapalyam Deviation Road, Salem-
Namakkal Road, Tamilnadu. The deceased succumbed to the
injuries on the accidental spot itself. Hence, it is just, proper
and necessary to award a sum of Rupees 10,000/- towards
transportation expenses of the dead body of deceased and
Rupees 30,000/- towards loss of estate. Hence, the Petitioners
are entitled for Rupees 10,000/- towards transportation
expenses of the dead body of the deceased and Rupees
30,000/- towards loss of estate.
63. In this way, the Petitioners are entitled for the
following amount of compensation:-
Sl.No. Compensation heads Compensation amount
1. Loss of consortium Rs. 1,00,000-00
2. Funeral Expenses Rs. 25,000-00
3. Loss of Love and affection Rs. 25,000-00
4. Loss of Estate Rs. 30,000-00
5. Transportation of dead body Rs. 10,000-00
TOTAL Rs. 1,90,000-00
64. In all, the Petitioners are entitled for total
compensation of Rupees 1,90,000/- along with interest at the
SCCH-7 51 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
rate of 8% per annum on the above said sum from the date of
petition till payment.
65. ISSUE NO.2 IN M.V.C.No.2676/2014 :- The
P.W.2 has stated that, in the said road traffic accident, he had
sustained dislocation of right shoulder joint and he was taken
treatment at Government M.K. Medical College and Hospital,
Salem and thereafter, he was shifted to Sagar Hospital at
Tilaknagar, Jayanagar Extension, Bangalore, wherein, he was
admitted as an inpatient for 2 days. He has further stated that,
at the time of accident, he was hale and healthy and working
as B.B.M.P. Contractor Engineer and he was drawing a salary
of Rupees 40,000/- per month. He has further stated that, due
to the accident, he was unable to do his work and hence,
thereby, his entire family is put to great financial loss and
mental agony.
66. Except Ex.P.16 Wound Certificate, issued by Sagar
Hospital, the Petitioner has not produced any documents to
show that, by admitting as an inpatient for 2 days, he was
taken treatment to the said accidental injuries, i.e., dislocation
of right shoulder joint. While answering Issue No.2, this
Tribunal has already come to the conclusion based on Ex.P.16
Wound Certificate that, in the said road traffic accident, the
Petitioner had sustained injury, i.e., dislocation of right
shoulder joint, which is grievous in nature. The Petitioner has
not produced the Discharge Summary issued by Sagar
SCCH-7 52 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
Hospital to show the line of treatment given to him to the said
accidental injuries and its length. Further, the Petitioner has
not produced any Medical Bills or medical prescriptions. In
this regard, the P.W.2 in his cross-examination has clearly
stated that, he has not produced any medical documents to
show that, he has taken treatment in the Hospital by incurring
amount as stated in his affidavit. He has further clearly stated
that, as per Ex.P.16, the injuries sustained by him in the
alleged accident are simple in nature. On perusal of the said
oral version of P.W.2 as well as non-production of the material
medical documents, it clearly goes to show that, the Petitioner
had taken conservative treatment only to the said accidental
injuries in the said Hospital. Furthermore, admittedly, the
Petitioner was working as a B.B.M.P. Contractor Engineer by
drawing salary of Rupees 40,000/- per month at the time of
accident. From this, it appears that, whatever the medical
expenses incurred by him to take treatment to the said
accidental injuries were to be reimbursed by the employer of
the Petitioner and as such, the Petitioner has no medical
documents to consider his evidence. Further, the Petitioner
has not examined the treated Doctor. Even the Petitioner has
not stated anything about the nature of difficulties, which has
been suffered by him to the accidental injuries, which caused
inconvenience to do his work. Even the Petitioner has not
produced the disability certificate issued by the treated Doctor
or the competent Doctor. Hence, the Petitioner is not entitled
for compensation under the different heads.
SCCH-7 53 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
67. However, in the said road traffic accident, the
Petitioner had sustained dislocation of right shoulder joint,
which is grievous in nature and he took treatment at Sagar
Hospital, this Tribunal feels that, it is just, proper and
necessary to award a global compensation of Rupees 25,000/-
to the Petitioner, which is fare, reasonable and acceptable one.
68. Therefore, the Petitioner is entitled for global
compensation of Rupees 25,000/- along with interest at the
rate of 8% per annum on the above said sum from the date of
petition till payment.
69. ISSUE NO.2 IN M.V.C.NO.2677/2013 :- The
P.W.3, who is the guardian of the Petitioner has stated that,
his daughter was admitted as an inpatient from 03.09.2013 to
04.09.2013 at Sagar Hospital and during the period of
treatment, he was operated for the injuries. He has further
stated that, at the time of accident, his daughter was student
and due to the accident and accidental injuries, his entire
family is put to great financial loss and mental agony.
70. The Petitioner has only produced Ex.P.17 Wound
Certificate, Ex.P.18 Discharge Summary and Ex.P.19 Medical
Bill.
71. The P.W.3 in his cross-examination has clearly
stated that, at the time of accident, the Petitioner was a minor
and she was studying in 9th Standard. Based on the contents
SCCH-7 54 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
of Ex.P.17 Wound Certificate and Ex.P.18 Discharge Summary,
this Tribunal has already come to the conclusion that, in the
said road traffic accident, the Petitioner had sustained two
grievous injuries, i.e., sutured lacerated wound 15 c.m., in
length over forehead and laceration upper lip 4 x 0.5 c.m., and
by admitting as an inpatient from 03.09.2013 to 04.09.2013,
i.e., for 2 days, she took treatment to the said accidental
injuries at Sagar Hospital. Further, it is clearly mentioned in
Ex.P.8 Discharge Summary that, during the course of
treatment, it was diagnosed that, facial and lip laceration.
72. But, based on the said reasons, the Petitioner is not
entitled for any compensation towards loss of income arising
out of permanent physical and functional disability which
caused due to the accidental injuries, loss of amenities of life,
future medical expenses, loss of income during laid up period
and loss of education, as, the Petitioner has not examined the
treated Doctor and has not produced disability certificate
issued by the competent Doctor. Further, the P.W.3 has not
stated anything in his evidence that, due to the said accidental
injuries, the Petitioner has lost her academic year education.
Further, the P.W.3 in his cross-examination itself has clearly
stated that, at the time of accident, his daughter was studying
in 9th Standard and now she is studying in 1st PUC, which
clarify the fact that, due to the said accidental injuries, the
Petitioner has not sustained any loss to her education and she
has been regularly continuing her education without any
SCCH-7 55 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
disturbance and break due to the said accidental injuries.
Therefore, the Petitioner is not entitled for compensation under
the above said heads. But, the Petitioner is entitled for the
compensation under the following heads.
73. As per Ex.P.17 Wound Certificate and evidence of
P.W.3, the Petitioner had sustained two grievous injuries. The
Petitioner was in the Hospital as an inpatient from 03.09.2013
to 04.09.2013, i.e., for 2 days. Due to the said injuries, the
Petitioner could have definitely suffered a lot of pain and agony
during the course of treatment. Considering the said aspects, it
is just, proper and necessary to award a sum of Rupees
50,000/- towards pain and suffering.
74. The P.W.3 has stated that, he has incurred a
substantial medical expenses of Rupees 46,364/- towards
medicines, treatment and Rupees 25,000/- towards
conveyance and nourishment etc. In this regard, the Petitioner
has only produced Ex.P.19 Medical Bill, which is amounting of
Rupees 46,363-64. The Petitioner has taken treatment at
Sagar Hospitals, wherein, she was taken treatment as an
inpatient from 03.09.2013 to 04.09.2013, i.e., for 2 days.
Considering the nature of the injuries and line of treatment
given to the Petitioner, the possibility of spending the said
amount for the medicines cannot be doubted. Further, the said
amount covered under Ex.P.19 Medical Bills is not reimbursed
from the employer of the Petitioner, i.e., her father. Therefore,
SCCH-7 56 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
it is necessary to award the said actual medical expenses of
Rupees 46,363-64, which is rounded off Rupees 46,364/- to
the Petitioner.
75. At the time of accident, the Petitioner was a minor
female child. It is clearly mentioned in Ex.P.8 Discharge
Summary that, it is diagnosed facial lip laceration. As the
Petitioner is a female child and it is diagnosed facial and lip
laceration, this Tribunal feels that, it is just, proper and
necessary to award compensation towards disfiguration.
Hence, a sum of Rupees 10,000/- is awarded towards
disfiguration.
76. As the Petitioner was taken treatment as an
inpatient for 2 days, it is necessary to award a sum of Rupees
2,000/- towards conveyance charges, Rupees 2,000/- towards
attendant charges and Rupees 3,000/- towards food,
nourishment and diet charges etc.,
77. In this way, the Petitioner is entitled for the
following amount of compensation:-
Sl. No. Compensation heads Compensation amount
1. Pain and sufferings Rs. 50,000-00
2. Actual medical expenses Rs. 46,364-00
3. Disfiguration Rs. 10,000-00
4. Conveyance Rs. 2,000-00
5. Attendant Charges Rs. 2,000-00
Food, Nourishment &
6. Rs. 3,000-00
Diet charges
SCCH-7 57 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
TOTAL Rs. 1,13,364-00
78. In all, the Petitioner is entitled for total
compensation of Rupees 1,13,364/- along with interest at the
rate of 8% per annum on the above said sum from the date of
petition till payment.
79. ISSUE NO.2 IN M.V.C.NO.2678/2013 :- The
Petitioner has produced Ex.P.22 PAN Card, which disclosed
that, her date of birth is on 16.12.1954. The date of accident is
on 03.09.2013. On perusal of the said dates, it appears that, at
the time of accident, the Petitioner was 59 years old. Hence,
the age of the Petitioner is considered as 59 years at the time
of accident.
80. The P.W.4 has stated that, at the time of accident,
she was doing business and as a businessmen and she was
running a Granite Factory by name Palaka Granites and also
she had a Granite Quarry at Plot No.390, KIADB
Holenarasipura Road, Hassan, as a businessmen was an
Income Tax Assessee and her PAN No. is AAFPI3515F and in
the last Assessment Year 2008-2009 declared income of
Rupees 69,620/-, 2009-2010 declared income of Rupees
99,270/-, 2010-2011 declared income of Rupees 2,25,553/-,
2012-2013 declared income of Rupees 1,85,520/- and in the
year 2013-2014, the Gross Total income of Rupees 1,98,700/-.
The Petitioner has produced Ex.P.24 Income Tax Returns for
SCCH-7 58 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
the Assessment Years 2010-2011, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014,
3 in numbers, which disclosed that, for the Assessment Year
2010-2011, the Gross income of the Petitioner was of Rupees
2,25,553/- and she has paid income tax of Rupees 13,570/-,
in 2012-2013 Gross income of Rupees 1,85,520/- and 2013-
2014 Gross income of Rupees 1,98,700/- and she has not paid
income tax for the Assessment Year 2012-2013 and 2013-
2014.
81. But, based on the said oral version of P.W.4,
coupled with the contents of Ex.P.24 Income Returns, it
cannot be believed and accept that, at the time of accident, the
Petitioner was having income, as, the Petitioner has paid the
income tax only for the Assessment Year 2010-2011 and
thereafter, she has not paid any income tax and she has only
submitted Income Tax Returns and the Petitioner has not
produced Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2011-
2012. Further, except Ex.P.24 Income Tax Returns, no
authenticated documents are produced by the Petitioner to
show that, at the time of accident, she was doing business by
running Granite Factory by name Palaka Granites and she had
also Granite Quarry. Further, the annexure of Ex.P.24 do not
tallied to each other and in this regard, the P.W.4 in her cross-
examination has clearly stated that, the annexure relating to
Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2010-2011 is
relating to 2009 and the annexure relating to Income Tax
Returns for the Assessment Year 2012-2013 is relating to 2008
SCCH-7 59 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
and Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Years 2012-2013
and 2013 - 2014 are relating to after the accident. Though the
accident was taken place on 03.09.2013, the Petitioner has not
produced the Income Tax Returns, which includes the said
date of accident. She has further clearly stated in her cross-
examination that, she has obtained licence from the concerned
department for doing and running a granite factory. But, no
scrap of paper has been produced by the Petitioner to consider
the same. In this regard, she has clearly stated that, she has
not produced any documents. Further, though she has further
stated that, she has no hurdle to produce the documents
relating to her avocation, she did not care to produce the same.
Even, the Petitioner has not produced her Bank Statement to
consider her avocation and income. Further, the P.W.4 in her
cross-examination has clearly stated that, now also, Marriage
Choultry is running and she is also getting income from
Agriculture, Lorry and Tractor and her son is looking after her
business. Even, the Petitioner has not disclosed her
educational qualification. Therefore, the nature of avocation
and income as stated by the P.W.4 cannot be believed and
accept. However, at the time of accident, the Petitioner was 59
years old and as per Ex.P.24 Income Tax Returns, the
Petitioner was an income tax assesee, this Tribunal feels that,
it is just, proper and necessary to consider the notional income
of the Petitioner is of Rupees 8,000/- per month at the time of
accident. Hence, the notional income of the Petitioner is
SCCH-7 60 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
considered as Rupees 8,000/- per month at the time of
accident.
82. The P.W.1 has stated that, she was admitted as an
inpatient from 03.09.2013 to 23.09.2013 at Sagar Hospital.
83. Based on Ex.P.20 Wound Certificate and Ex.P.21
Discharge Summary, this Tribunal has already come to the
conclusion that, in the said road traffic accident, the Petitioner
had sustained 2 grievous injuries, i.e., Posterior column
fracture acetabulum right hip with right iliac wing fracture and
comminuted fracture of proximal right humerus and by
admitting as an inpatient from 03.09.2013 to 23.09.2013, i.e.,
for 21 days, she took treatment to the said accidental injuries
at Sagar Hospital. It is clearly mentioned in Ex.P.21 Discharge
Summary and Ex.P.27 and Ex.P.28 Inpatient Records that,
during the course of treatment, Open reduction internal
fixation with reconstruction plate and screws right hip on
07.09.2013 and open reduction internal fixation with philo's
plate and screws + bone graft right shoulder on 10.09.2013.
The same has also been stated by the P.W.5, who is a treated
Doctor, in his examination-in-chief. He has further stated that,
the Petitioner was followed up regularly on OPD basis and
further care and physiotherapy given.
84. From the said medical evidence, it is made crystal
clear that, during the course of treatment, the Petitioner is
having implants in situ to the said accidental injuries. Hence,
SCCH-7 61 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
even after discharge from the Hospital, the Petitioner required
the regular follow-up treatment as per the advise of the treated
Doctor. Hence, the evidence stated by the P.W.5 in respect of
the line of treatment during the course of treatment and follow-
up treatment taken by the Petitioner after discharge is believed
and accept. In this regard the P.W.5 has also produced Ex.P.29
Outpatient Record.
85. The P.W.5 has stated that, on 18.08.2015, the
Petitioner complaints of pain and sever restriction of right
shoulder and difficulty in activities of daily living and pain and
difficult ambulation of right hip and on examination - Vitals
were stable right shoulder - Linear surgical scar on medical
aspect of shoulder extending up to Axilla with Scar and deep
tenderness, deltoid atrophy, muscle girth decreased by 1 inch,
range of movement decreased by 70%, muscle power - 4/5, no
neurovascular deficits. He has further stated that, right hip
and iliac region - linear surgical scar on Anterior aspect of hip
and thigh extending laterally and posteriorly upwards with
scar tenderness, decreased sensation on anterior and lateral
aspect of thigh, range of movement decreased by 50%, muscle
power - 4/5, no vascular deficit. He has further stated that,
recent X-ray of right shoulder shows united fracture of right
proximal humerus heterotrophic ossification with implant in
situ, X-ray of pelvis with both hips shows united fracture of
right acetabulam and right iliac wing implant in situ. He has
further stated that, the Petitioner is suffering from disability of
SCCH-7 62 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
right upper limb is 42.77%, right lower limb is 34% and whole
body is 30.59%.
86. But, based on the said oral version of P.W.5
coupled with the contents of the above said medical
documents, it cannot be believed and accept that, due to the
said accidental injuries, the Petitioner is suffering from whole
body disability of 30.59%, as, at the time of accident, the
Petitioner was 59 years old and due to her age factor also, the
Petitioner has difficulties to do her day today and normal
activities and the Petitioner has utterly failed to prove her
avocation and income at the time of accident and she has
clearly stated in her cross-examination that, now her son has
been looking after her business and now also Marriage
Choultry is running and she is also getting income from
Agriculture, Lorry and Tractor, which clarify the fact that, even
after the accident, the Petitioner is regularly getting income
without any disturbance. Further, the P.W.5 has not
specifically assessed the permanent physical and function
disability of the Petitioner, which is arising out of the said
accidental injuries. He has further clearly admitted that,
comminuted fracture can be cured or rectified without any
complication and there are no other complaints in respect of
shoulder concerned and some amount of improvement was
made by physiotherapy treatment. More so, the P.W.4, who is
the Petitioner, has not stated anything about the difficulties
and disability, which has been suffering by her from the
SCCH-7 63 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
accidental injuries, in her examination-in-chief. Further, the
P.W.5 has clearly stated that, to improve the stiffness of the
shoulder, physiotherapy is advised to the Petitioner and for
rectification of pain, physiotherapy not required. He has
further clearly admitted that, restriction of movements will be
occurred if the organs were not used for a quite long period
and the implant in tissue is also caused pain. He has further
stated that, if the implants removed and if the physiotherapy
treatment is taken, the extent of disability will be reduced in
future course of time relating to upper limb and lower limb.
Therefore, the said extent of 30.59% whole body disability as
stated by the P.W.5 relating to the Petitioner due to the
accidental injuries cannot be believed and accept.
87. Hence, the Petitioner is not entitled for the
compensation towards loss of future income arising out of the
permanent physical and functional disability. However, the
Petitioner is entitled for compensation under the following
heads.
88. As per Ex.P.20 Wound Certificate and evidence of
P.W.4 and P.W.5, the Petitioner had sustained two grievous
injuries. The Petitioner was in the Hospital as an inpatient
from 03.09.2013 to 23.09.2013, i.e., for 21 days. Due to the
said injuries, the Petitioner could have definitely suffered a lot
of pain and agony during the course of treatment. Considering
SCCH-7 64 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
the said aspects, it is just, proper and necessary to award a
sum of Rupees 60,000/- towards pain and suffering.
89. As it is already observed that, the age of the
Petitioner was 59 years. She has to lead remaining her entire
life with 15% permanent physical and functional disability,
which comes in the way of enjoyment of life. Therefore, it is
just and proper to award a sum of Rupees 30,000/- towards
loss of amenities of life to the Petitioner.
90. The Petitioner had sustained two grievous injuries
and she was in the Hospital as an inpatient for 21 days and
she could not do any work at least for 4 months and thereby,
she deprived the income. Therefore, at the rate of Rupees
8,000/- per month, a sum of Rupees 32,000/- is awarded
towards loss of income during the laid up period.
91. The P.W.4 has stated that, for the treatment and
medicines, she has incurred a sum of Rupees 6,48,600/- and
Rupees 2,00,000/- towards conveyance and nourishment etc.
In this regard, the Petitioner has only produced Ex.P.23
Medical Bills 2 in numbers, which is amounting of Rupees
6,78,600/-, Ex.P.25 Medical Bills 5 in numbers, which is
amounting of Rupees 6,900/- and Ex.P.26 Medical Advance
Bills 11 in numbers. No doubt, the P.W.4 in her cross-
examination has stated that, she does not know that, what
was the consumables amounting of Rupees 1,32,160-60 and
Rupees 52,812/- as shown in serial No.1 and 2 of Ex.P.23
SCCH-7 65 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
Medical Bills, respectively and she has not produced any
receipt to show that, the remaining amount of medical
expenses borne by her. She has further stated that, serial No.1
and 3 are relating to Vismitha and she does not know, who has
paid and how it has paid the medical expenses incurred to her
treatment. But, based on the said evidence elicited from the
mouth of P.W.4 by the Respondents, it cannot be thrown away
the amount covered under Ex.P.23 and Ex.P.25 Medical Bills,
as, the name Vismitha shown in serial No.1 and 3 are relating
to Ex.P.26 Medical Advance Bills and whatever the amount
paid in advance is also included in Ex.P.23 Medical Bills and
as such, Ex.P.26 Medical Advance Bills cannot be taken into
for consideration. Further, by admitting as an inpatient for 21
days, the Petitioner took treatment to the accidental injuries.
Hence, the said evidence of P.W.4, which is elicited from the
Respondents no way affect to consider the amount covered
under Ex.P.23 and Ex.P.25 Medical Bills. The Petitioner has
taken treatment at Sagar Hospitals, wherein, she was taken
treatment as an inpatient from 03.09.2013 to 23.09.2013, i.e.,
for 21 days. Considering the nature of the injuries and line of
treatment given to the Petitioner, the possibility of spending
the said amount for the medicines cannot be doubted.
Therefore, it is necessary to award the said actual medical
expenses of Rupees 6,85,500/- to the Petitioner.
92. The P.W.4 has not stated anything about the future
medical assistance and its expenses. The P.W.5 has stated
SCCH-7 66 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
that, the Petitioner requires future surgery in the form of
implant removal and total joint replacement of right shoulder
in view of severe pain and heterotrophic ossification. It is
clearly mentioned in Ex.P.21 Discharge Summary about Open
reduction internal fixation with reconstruction plate and
screws right hip on 07.09.2013 and open reduction internal
fixation with philo's plate and screws + bone graft right
shoulder on 10.09.2013, which disclosed about the insertion of
implants in situ. The said implants have to be removed and
therefore, the Petitioner requires the amount for future medical
expenses. Neither the Petitioner nor P.W.5 produced the
estimation for removal of implants. However, this Tribunal
feels that, it is just, proper and necessary to award future
medical expenses of Rupees 20,000/- to the Petitioner.
93. As the Petitioner was taken treatment as an
inpatient for 21 days, it is necessary to award a sum of Rupees
5,000/- towards conveyance charges, Rupees 5,000/- towards
attendant charges and Rupees 8,000/- towards food,
nourishment and diet charges etc.,
94. In this way, the Petitioner is entitled for the
following amount of compensation:-
Sl. No. Compensation heads Compensation amount
1. Pain and sufferings Rs. 60,000-00
2. Loss of amenities of life Rs. 30,000-00
3. Loss of income during laid Rs. 32,000-00
SCCH-7 67 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
up period
4. Actual medical expenses Rs. 6,85,500-00
5. Future medical expenses Rs. 20,000-00
6. Conveyance Rs. 5,000-00
7. Attendant Charges Rs. 5,000-00
Food, Nourishment &
8. Rs. 8,000-00
Diet charges
TOTAL Rs. 8,45,500-00
95. In all, the Petitioner is entitled for total
compensation of Rupees 8,45,500/- along with interest at the
rate of 8% per annum on the above said sum (excluding future
medical expenses of Rupees 20,000/-) from the date of petition
till payment.
96. While answering Issue No.2 in
M.V.C.No.2675/2014 and Issues No.1 in
M.V.C.No.2676/2014, M.V.C.No.2677/2014 and
M.V.C.No.2678/2014, this Tribunal has already come to the
conclusion that, the offending Tempo Traveller bearing
Registration No.KA-50-6483 as well as its driver, are very
much involved in the said road traffic accident, wherein, the
wife of the Petitioner No.1 in M.V.C.No.2675/2014 Smt.
Parinitha succumbed to the accidental injuries on the
accidental spot itself and the Petitioners in
M.V.C.No.2676/2014, M.V.C.No.2677/2014 and
M.V.C.No.2678/2014 had sustained grievous injuries and the
said accident was taken place due to high speed, rash and
negligent manner of driving of the said offending Tempo
SCCH-7 68 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
Traveller bearing Registration No.KA-50-6483 by its driver. The
Petitioners in the cause title of all the petitions clearly
mentioned that, the Respondent No.1 is an insurer of the
offending Tempo Traveller bearing Registration No.KA-50-6483
and its Policy No.1415732340000072 and valid from
27.05.2013 to 26.05.2014. The Respondent No.2 in its Written
Statement has clearly admitted that, he is the owner of the
Tempo Traveller bearing Registration No.KA-50-6483 and he
has insured the said vehicle Tempo Traveller bearing
Registration No.KA-50-6483 with the Respondent No.1 vide
Police/Certificate No.1415732340000072 and the same was
valid from 27.05.2013 till midnight of 26.05.2014 and the
Insurance Policy stood in his name. The R.W.1, who is the
Deputy Manager of the Respondent No.1 has clearly admitted
in his examination-in-chief that, the Policy in respect of the
offending Tempo Traveller bearing Registration No.KA-50-6483
as per the Policy and hence, the liability of their company if
any, the same is in accordance with the terms and conditions
of the policy of insurance and also provisions of the Motor
Vehicles Act. The Respondent No.1 has also produced Ex.R.1
Insurance Policy. From this material evidence, it is clearly go to
show that, at the time of accident, the Respondent No.1 was an
insurer and the Respondent No.2 was a R.C. Owner of the
offending Tempo Traveller bearing Registration No.KA-50-6483
and its Insurance Policy was valid, which covers the date of
accident.
SCCH-7 69 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
97. The R.W.1 has stated in his examination-in-chief
that, the driver of the Tempo Traveller bearing Registration
No.KA-50-6483 drove the same without having valid and
effective driving licence and he was carrying more than 16
people in the insured Tempo traveler, which is in contravention
of the policy terms and conditions and also the Motor Vehicles
Act and Rules. He has further stated that, the owner of the
Tempo Traveller bearing Registration No.KA-50-6483 was
allowed to carry the passenger more than permitted capacity
and because of that reason, the driver of the Tempo Traveller
bearing Registration No.KA-50-6483 lost the control over the
same and caused the accident and therefore, it is a clear
violation of the permit condition, the policy terms and
conditions and also the Motor Vehicles Act and hence, their
Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. He
has further stated that, as per the registration certificate and
permit issued by the Regional Transport Authority, it is clear
that, the said vehicle is authorized to carry 12 passengers and
one driver, but, the owner has allowed to carry more than 16
persons in the insured Tempo Traveller at the time of the
accident and therefore, their Insurance Company is not liable
to pay compensation.
98. But, only based on the said oral version of R.W.1, it
cannot be come to the conclusion that, at the time of accident,
the driver of the offending Tempo Traveller bearing Registration
No.KA-50-6483 was not having a valid and effective driving
SCCH-7 70 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
licence to drive such class of vehicle and he was carrying more
than 16 people in the said offending Tempo Traveller, as, it is
authorized to carry only 12 passengers and one driver and as
such, the Respondent No.1 being an insurer is not liable to pay
the compensation and interest to the all the Petitioners, as,
except the oral version of R.W.1, no authenticated documents
are produced by the Respondent No.1 to show that, at the time
of accident, more than 16 persons were traveling in the said
offending Tempo Traveller. Further, the P.W.1 and P.W.3 in
their cross-examination have clearly stated that, he, his son
Lekhan, daughter Vismith Gowda, his wife Parinitha, his
mother-in-law Indira, one Appaji Gowda, Ajay, Prema and Ajay
wife Geetha were traveling and only driver was in the said
vehicle at the time of accident and there was no cleaner. The
P.W.4 has further clearly stated in her cross-examination that,
at the time of accident, she and her relatives, totally, 11
persons were traveling in the offending Tempo Traveller and
their names are herself Indira, Mahadev, Parinitha, Lekhan,
Vismitha, Prema, Appaji Gowda, Ajay, Shripriay, Geetha and
Divya. From the said evidence of P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.4, it
clearly goes to show that, at the time of accident, in the
offending Tempo Traveller only 11 passengers were traveling.
Further, there is no allegations made by the Investigation
Officer in Ex.P.7 Charge Sheet that, at the time of accident,
there were more than 12 persons were traveling in the
offending Tempo Traveller bearing Registration No.KA-50-6483
and the driver of the said offending Tempo Traveller was not
SCCH-7 71 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014
M.V.C.No.2677/2014
M.V.C.No.2678/2014
having a valid and effective driving licence to drive such class
of offending vehicle. Therefore, the said evidence of R.W.1,
cannot be believed and accept as not proved.
99. As this Tribunal has already observed and come to
the conclusion that, at the time of accident, the Respondent
No.1 was an insurer and the Respondent No.2 was a registered
owner of the offending Tempo Traveller bearing Registration
No.KA-50-6483 and its Insurance Policy was valid, which
covers the date of accident. Hence, the Respondent No.1 being
an insurer and the Respondent No.2 being a R.C. Owner of the
offending Tempo Traveller bearing Registration No.KA-50-6483
are jointly and severally liable to pay the above said
compensation and interest to the Petitioners in all the cases.
Since the Respondent No.1 is an insurer, it shall indemnify the
Respondent No.2. Hence, Issue No.3 in
M.V.C.No.2675/2014, Issues No.2 in M.V.C.No.2676/2014,
M.V.C.No.2677/2014 and M.V.C.No.2678/2014, are
answered accordingly.
100. ISSUE NO.4 IN M.V.C.No.2675/2014 :- For the
aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following,
ORDER
The petition filed by the Petitioners under Section 166 of the SCCH-7 72 M.V.C.No.2675/2014 C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014 M.V.C.No.2677/2014 M.V.C.No.2678/2014 Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The Petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rupees 1,90,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of payment from the Respondent No.1.
The Petitioners shall share the said compensation and interest in the ratio of 60:20:20.
The Respondent No.1 shall deposit the said compensation and interest in this Tribunal, within one month from the date of this Order.
In the event of deposit of compensation and interest, the entire shares relating to the Petitioners No.1 and 2 shall be released in their favour, respectively, through account payee cheques, on proper identification.
The share relating to the Petitioner No.3 shall be kept in SCCH-7 73 M.V.C.No.2675/2014 C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014 M.V.C.No.2677/2014 M.V.C.No.2678/2014 F.D. in her name in any nationaziled Bank of the choice of her guardian, till she attains the age of majority.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rupees 1,000/-.
Original copy of the Judgment shall be kept in M.V.C.No.2675/2014 and the copy of the same shall be kept in M.V.C.No.2676/2014 to. M.V.C.No.2678/2014.
Draw award accordingly.
78. ISSUE NO.3 IN M.V.C.No.2676/2014 :- For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following, ORDER The petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The Petitioner is entitled for global compensation of Rupees SCCH-7 74 M.V.C.No.2675/2014 C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014 M.V.C.No.2677/2014 M.V.C.No.2678/2014 25,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of payment, from the Respondent No.1.
The Respondent No.1 shall deposit the said compensation and interest in this Tribunal, within one month from the date of this Order.
In the event of deposit of compensation and interest, entire amount shall be released in the name of Petitioner through account payee cheque, on proper identification.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rupees 1,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
78. ISSUE NO.3 IN M.V.C.No.2677/2014 :- For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following, ORDER The petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 166 of the SCCH-7 75 M.V.C.No.2675/2014 C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014 M.V.C.No.2677/2014 M.V.C.No.2678/2014 Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The Petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rupees 1,13,364/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of payment, from the Respondent No.1.
The Respondent No.1 shall deposit the said compensation and interest in this Tribunal, within one month from the date of this Order.
In the event of deposit of compensation and interest, 45% amount shall be released in the name of the guardian of the Petitioner through account payee cheque, on proper identification.
Remaining 55% shall be kept in F.D. in the name of the Petitioner in any nationalized Bank of the choice of the guardian, till she attains the age of majority.
SCCH-7 76 M.V.C.No.2675/2014C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014 M.V.C.No.2677/2014 M.V.C.No.2678/2014 Advocate's fee is fixed at Rupees 1,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
78. ISSUE NO.3 IN M.V.C.No.2678/2014 :- For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following, ORDER The petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The Petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rupees 8,45,500/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. (excluding future medical expenses of Rupees 20,000/-) from the date of the petition till the date of payment, from the Respondent No.1.
The Respondent No.1 shall deposit the said compensation and interest in this Tribunal, within one month from the date of this Order.
SCCH-7 77 M.V.C.No.2675/2014C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014 M.V.C.No.2677/2014 M.V.C.No.2678/2014 In the event of deposit of compensation and interest, 85% shall be released in the name of Petitioner through account payee cheque, on proper identification.
Remaining 15% shall be kept in FD in the name of the Petitioner, in any nationalized Bank of her choice, for a period of 3 years.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rupees 1,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then, pronounced by me in the open Court on this, the 1st day of March, 2016.) (INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR) IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE PETITIONERS :-
P.W.1 : B. A. Mahadev
P.W.2 : B. A. Mahadev
SCCH-7 78 M.V.C.No.2675/2014
C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014 M.V.C.No.2677/2014 M.V.C.No.2678/2014 P.W.3 : B. A. Mahadev P.W.4 : Smt. Indira H. S. P.W.5 : Dr. Jagadish. D. S.
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED BY THE PETITIONERS :-
Ex.P.1 : True copy of FIR along with Translation Ex.P.2 : True copy of Complaint along with Translation Ex.P.3 : True copy of Spot Hand Sketch along with Translation Ex.P.4 : True copy of Spot Mahazar along with Translation Ex.P.5 : True copy of MVI Report Ex.P.6 : True copy of Postmortem Certificate Ex.P.7 : True copy of list of witness along with Charge Sheet and its Translation Ex.P.8 : Notarized Xerox copy of Aadhaar Car relating to K. Parinitha Ex.P.9 : Notarized Xerox copy of Aadhaar Card relating to B. A. Mahadev Ex.P.10 : Notarized Xerox copy of Aadhaar Card relating to B. M. Lekhan Ex.P.11 : Notarized Xerox copy of Aadhaar Card relating to B. M. Vismitha Gowda Ex.P.12 : Notarized Xerox copy of Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2006-2007 Ex.P.13 : Notarized Xerox copy of Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2007-2008 Ex.P.14 : Notarized Xerox copy of Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2008-2009 Ex.P.15 : Notarized Xerox Copy Of Income Tax Returns For The Assessment Year 2009-2010 Ex.P.16 : True copy of Wound Certificate SCCH-7 79 M.V.C.No.2675/2014 C/w M.V.C.No.2676/2014 M.V.C.No.2677/2014 M.V.C.No.2678/2014 Ex.P.17 : True copy of Wound Certificate Ex.P.18 : Discharge Summary Ex.P.19 : Medical Bill Ex.P.20 : True copy of Wound Certificate Ex.P.21 : Discharge Summary Ex.P.22 : Notarized Xerox copy of PAN Card relating to H.S. Indira Ex.P.23 : Medical Bills (2 in nos.) Ex.P.24 : Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Years 2010-2011, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 (3 in nos.) Ex.P.25 : Medical Bills (5 in nos.) Ex.P.26 : Medical Advance Bills (11 in nos.) Ex.P.27 : Inpatient Record Ex.P.28 : Inpatient Record Ex.P.29 : Outpatient Record Ex.P.30 : X-ray Films (14 in nos.) Ex.P.31 : CT Scan Films (10 in nos.)
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE RESPONDENTS :-
R.W.1 : H. B. Guruprasad
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED BY THE RESPONDENTS :-
Ex.R.1 : True copy of Insurance Policy (INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR) IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.