Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

This claim petition is filed by the petitioner claiming compensation of ₹.15,00,000/- with interest from the date of petition till its realization for the injuries sustained by the petitioner.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that on 28.07.2021 at about 7.45 p.m., when she was walking on the mud portion of Kamalapura - Beeragondanahalli Road Near Kittanna's land, at that time a Bike bearing Regn.No.KA-02-HK- 4926 ridden by its rider at high speed in a rash and negligent manner in a zigzag manner and hit to petitioner. Due to which, she fell down and sustained grievous injuries and thereafter she was shifted to MC Orthopaedic, Arthroscopy and Joint Replacement Center, Tumkur, wherein she took treatment as an inpatient and spent a sum of ₹.75,000/- towards medical, conveyance, nourishment and other incidental charges.

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed in the claim petition? If so, what is the quantum of compensation and from whom?
3. What order or award?

6. In order to prove her case, the petitioner has examined herself as PW.1, Medical Record Officer working at MC Orthopaedic Arthroscopy & Joint Replacement Center examined as PW.2 and Dr.Nagaraj.B.N examined as PW.3 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.17 and closed her side of evidence. On the other hand, the respondent insurance company examined its Senior Manager as RW.1 and got marked documents at Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.13 and closed their side of evidence.

13. PW.1 in her cross examination, she has deposed that she has not seen the vehicle which hit to her, because she fell down. Further she has deposed that at the time of accident, the villagers were also present. RW.1 in his chief examination, he has deposed that the rider and petitioner belongs to same village, they have falsely implanted the said insured vehicle in this case. On perusal of documents placed by petitioner, the accident occurred when she was returning from her land. One Sri.Puttaraju lodged the complaint with the police on 05.08.2021 and accident occurred on 28.07.2021. In Ex.P.2, he has stated that vehicle bearing No.KA-02-HK-4926 dashed to her mother. On perusal of Ex.P.1 & 2, there was a delay in lodging first information. The petitioner produced Ex.P.5 - Medico legal certificate issued by MC Orthopaedic Arthroscopy Joint Replacement Center. As per the said document, the petitioner went to hospital on 28.07.2022 with the history of RTA. The petitioner summoned the documents from the hospital and marked police intimation as per Ex.P.3. The police intimation sent to police on 28.07.2021 and the same was received by police on 28.07.2021. So, the hospital authorities informed regarding the incident on the date of admission of patient. There is no delay in sending information to the police regarding the accident. Even on perusal of Ex.P.15 - Inpatient Record, the petitioner went to hospital with history of RTA on 28.07.2021 at about 7.45 p.m. All the hospital documents placed by petitioner, it clearly shows that immediately after the accident she went to hospital for treatment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in between Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan reported in (2011) 4 SCC 693, held that delay in lodging a FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimants case.

15. Issue No.2: In view of held issue No.1 in the Affirmative, the petitioner is entitled for compensation. To assess the compensation, the Tribunal has to look into several factors like injury, pain and suffering sustained by the petitioner and amount spent by the petitioner towards medical expenses, food and extra nourishment and medical attendants, conveyance, loss of income during treatment, disability, loss of amenities etc., let me discussion one by one.

i) Towards injury and pain and suffering:- The petitioner contended that due to accident she sustained injuries and underwent surgery and later discharged with an advice to take follow up treatment. In order to prove the injuries sustained she has produced Medico Legal certificate issued by M.C.Orthopaedic Arthroscopy - Joint Replacement Center marked at Ex.P.5, wherein it discloses that the injuries sustained by petitioner are grievous in nature. So, on perusal of records she took treatment in hospital as an inpatient, she has produced Ex.P7 - Discharge Summary and petitioner examined Dr.Nagaraj.B.N as PW.3 and got marked documents at Ex.P16 &