Bangalore District Court
V. Raghupathi vs G.S. Chandrashekar on 31 December, 2024
SCCH-2 1 MVC No.6710/2018
KABC020277062018
IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES AND ADDL. CHIEF JIDICIAL MAGISTRATE
AND MACT, BENGALURU. (SCCH-2).
M.V.C.No.6710/2018
Present : Sri. H.P. Mohan Kumar, B.Sc.,LL.B.,
VIth Addl. Judge, Court of Small
Causes and ACJM and MACT,
Bengaluru.
Dated on this 31st day of December, 2024.
Petitioner : Shri V. Raghupathi,
S/o Venkataramappa,
Aged about 20 years,
Resident of Byrasandra Village,
Tayalur Post,
Mulbagal Taluk,
Kolar District,
Pin Code:563 131.
(By Sri. D.V.V.G., Advocate)
-VERSUS-
Respondents 1. Shri. G.S. Chandrashekar,
S/o G. Seenappa,
6-950, Vinayaka Nagar,
Patrapalli,
V. Kote Post & Mandalam,
Chittoor District,
SCCH-2 2 M.V.C.No.6710/2018
Andhra Pradesh,
Pin Code:517 424.
RC Holder of Lorry bearing
Reg.No.AP-03-TC-8748.
(Ex-parte)
2. United India Insurance
Company Limited,
Krushik Samaja Buildings,
Hudson Circle,
N.R. Road,
Bangalore,
Pin Code:560 002.
Vide Policy
No.0516033117P113989890,
Valid from 05.01.2018 to 04.01.2019.
(By Sri.B.T.R., Advocate)
:J U D G M E N T:
This is a claim petition U/Sec.166 of MV Act claiming
compensation of Rs.23,00,000/- with interest for the injuries
suffered by the petitioner in the Motor Vehicle Accident
occurred on 11.08.2018.
2. The averments of the petition in brief is as follows:
The petitioner was working as a lorry cleaner under the
1st respondent. After unloading the goods from V. Kote to Eluru
of Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh, the petitioner was
SCCH-2 3 M.V.C.No.6710/2018returning to V. Kote from Eluru by loading some other goods in
the lorry bearing Reg.No.AP-03-TC-8748. On 11.08.2018, in
the morning at about 3.30 a.m., near Boppudi Village of
Chilakaluripete Taluk of Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh on
National High Way i.e., Vijayawada-Thirupathi road, Andhra
Pradesh, the lorry bearing Reg.No.AP-03-TC-8748 was driven
by its driver Muniraju with high speed in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed against the another unknown lorry, which
was going ahead of it. Due to impact, the petitioner sustained
multiple grievous injuries.
Immediately after the accident the petitioner was shifted
to Yashaswi Hospital, Peddakakani Road, Guntur City, wherein
he was admitted as an inpatient for two days. Thereafter he
was shifted to R.L. Jalappa Hospital, Kolar, wherein he was
admitted as an inpatient on 13.10.2018 and he has undergone
closed reduction and internal fixation with IMIL for right femur,
K-wire fixation for 4th and 5th Metatarsal fracture of left foot.
The petitioner has spent huge amount towards treatment,
conveyance, nourishment and other incidental charges.
SCCH-2 4 M.V.C.No.6710/2018
The injuries sustained by the petitioner resulted in
limping while walking, inability to squat, unable to stretch his
right leg and knee joint. He has suffered while walking,
working, to attend nature calls by using Indian toilets, get
down from the vehicles and his marriage as well as his future
prospectus also affected.
The petitioner was aged about 20 years and he was
working as a cleaner under the 1st respondent and getting
monthly salary of Rs.9,000/- and daily bata of Rs.150/-. The
petitioner has already obtained light motor vehicle driving
licence and he was waiting to obtain heavy motor vehicle
licence to drive heavy vehicle, thereby to earn not less than
Rs.20,000/- to Rs.30,000/-. Due to disability sustained by
him, the petitioner has sustained loss of income and economic
problems.
The accident was occurred due to rash or negligent
driving of the Lorry bearing Reg.No.AP-03-TC-8748 by its
driver. In this regard the Chilakaluripeta Rural Plice of Guntur
District, Andhra Pradesh have registered the case in FIR
No.126/2018 for the offence punishable under Sec.337 of IPC.
SCCH-2 5 M.V.C.No.6710/2018The 1st respondent is the R.C. owner of Lorry bearing
Reg.No.AP-03-TC-8748 and the 2nd respondent is the insurer of
the said lorry and the policy was in force as on the date of
accident. Hence, both the respondents are jointly and severally
liable to pay compensation. Hence, this petition.
3. After service of notice, 2nd respondent-Insurance
company appeared through it’s counsel and filed written
statement. In so far as 1st respondent- R.C. owner of offending
vehicle is concerned, he remained absent and he has been
placed Ex-parte.
4. The written statement averments of the 2nd
respondent are hereunder:
This Tribunal has no jurisdiction to enterain the petition.
The 2nd respondent has admitted the issuance of insurance
policy with respect to Lorry bearing Reg.No.AP-03-TC-8748 and
contended that, the liability if any is subject to the terms and
conditions of the policy, valid and effective D.L. held by the
driver of above said lorry. It is contended that, the insured
has violated the mandatory provisions under Sec.134(c) of
SCCH-2 6 M.V.C.No.6710/2018M.V.Act by not submitting the vehicle document. This
respondent has denied the contentions of petitioner that, he
was working under the 1st respondent and traveling in Lorry
bearing Reg.No.AP-03-TC-8748 as a cleaner and the accident
caused during the course of his employment. Inter-alia
contended that, the petitioner was traveling on the capacity of
gratuitous passenger in the lorry and this respondent has not
collected any premium to cover the risk of gratuitous
passengers/passengers/coolies traveling in the insured lorry,
as such this respondent is not liable to pay compensation to
the gratuitous passenger.
The 2nd respondent has denied the injuries sustained by
the petitioner, treatment taken by him, age, occupation, income
and disability sustained by the petitioner. Further denied the
injuries, amount spent by the petitioner and disability
sustained by him due to injuries sustained in the accident.
Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the predecessor
in the office has framed the following:
SCCH-2 7 M.V.C.No.6710/2018
:ISSUES:
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he
sustained injuries on account of rash and
negligent driving of Lorry bearing registration
No.AP-03-TC-8748 by its driver as contended
in the petition?
2. Whether the petitioner proves that, he is
entitled for the compensation? If so, to what
extent and from whom?
3. What order or award?
6. In order to prove his case, the petitioner examined
himself as P.W.1 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13. Further, he
examined Dr. Arun H.S., as P.W.2 and marked Ex.P.14 to
Ex.P.17. P.W.1 and P.W.2 were cross-examined from the side of
respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 examined one witness
namely as R.W.1 and marked Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2. R.W.1 was
cross-examined from the side of petitioner.
7. Heard the arguments from both side. Counsel for
the petitioner as well as the 2 nd respondent have submitted the
list of decisions. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted
the following decisions:
SCCH-2 8 M.V.C.No.6710/2018
1. 1999 ACJ 1419, between Noorulla Vs. P.K.
Prabhakar and Another.
2. 2009 ACJ 1778, between Divisional
Manager, New India Assurance Vs.
Shashidhara.
3. 2019 AcciCR 507 SC, between Sunita and
Others Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation.
4. 2005 ACJ 644 Karnataka (DB), between
M.V. Chowdappa Vs. Mohan Breweries and
Distilleries Ltd., and Another.
5. 2000 ACJ 557 SC, between Gurmith Kaur
Vs. State of Haryana amd Another.
6. 1980 SCR (3) 101, between NKV Brothers
Private Ltd., Vs. M. Karumariyammal and
Others.
7. 2012 ACJ 167, between The New India
Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Venkateshappa and
Others.
8. 2012 (13) Supreme Court Cases 792,
between The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs.
Surendranath Loomba and Others.
SCCH-2 9 M.V.C.No.6710/2018
9. 2018 (15) Supreme Court Cases 189,
between Jagtar Singh Alias Jagdev Singh Vs.
Sanjeev Kumar and Others.
10. ILR 2019 KAR 1969, between Divisional
Manager, United India Insu. Co. Ltd., Vs.
Veerabhadrappa, since Dead by L.Rs. and
Others.
11. ILR 2007 KAR 1289, between The New
India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Smt.Chennamma
and Others.
12. AIR 1980 SC 1354, between N.K.V.
Brothers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. M. Karumayiammal.
13. 2023 ACJ 2773, between Ranjiv Singh Vs.
Sheik Mohamed Omar and Another.
14. ILR 2020 KAR 2239, between New India
Assurance 01Co. Ltd., Bijapur Vs. Yallava.
15. 2004 (1) ACJ SC Page No.1, between
National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Swaran Singh
and others.
The counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted the
following decisions:
SCCH-2 10 M.V.C.No.6710/2018
1. 2006 ACJ 2771, between New India
Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. G.N. Gopalagowda and
Another.
2. 2009 ACJ 293, between Gurappa Vs.
Goudappagouda and Another.
3. 2008 ACJ 1252, between United India
Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Mahadevi and Others.
4. (2003) 8 SCC 311, between Ram Preethi
Yadav Vs. U.P. Board of high School and
Intermediate Education and Others.
5. AIR 1994 SC 853, between S.P.
Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs., Vs.
Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. and Others.
6. ILR 2015 KAR 401, between Mr.Vijay V.
Shetty Vs. Sharada and Others.
7. 2003 ACJ 782, between Rajendra Singh Vs.
Vinita Yadav and Others.
8. MFA No.4427/2010 (Kar), between New
India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Shanthi
Mascarenhas and Another.
8. Perused the records placed before the Tribunal. The
findings of this Tribunal to the above referred Issues are as
under:-
Issue No.1 :- In the Affirmative.
Issue No.2 :- In the Partly Affirmative.
SCCH-2 11 M.V.C.No.6710/2018
Issue No.3 :- As per the final order
for the following:
:REASONS:
9. ISSUE No.1:- In order to prove this issue, the
petitioner has examined himself as P.W.1 by way of filing
affidavit in support of his oral examination-in-chief. Hence,
this Tribunal need not to recapitulate the same once again at
this juncture. In order to prove this issue, P.W.1 has relied on
Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5. Accordingly, Ex.P.1 is the certified copy of FIR
pertaining to Cr.No.126/2018. Ex.P.2 is the certified copy of
Complaint in Telugu language. Ex.P.2(a) is the English
translated complaint. Ex.P.3 is the certified copy of intimation
of accident and injuries to police/Magistrate. Ex.P.4 is the
certified copy of wound certificate. Ex.P.5 is the certified copy
of charge sheet.
10. According to the petitioner, he has sustained
injuries in the road accident. The 2 nd respondent has not
seriously disputed the rash and negligent driving of the Lorry
bearing Reg.No.AP-03-TC-8748 by its driver and injuries
sustained by the petitioner in the accident.
SCCH-2 12 M.V.C.No.6710/2018
11. To prove the alleged negligence on the part of
petitioner, the Insurance Company has cross-examined the
petitioner/P.W.1 in detail. Nothing has been elicited from
mouth of P.W.1 to establish that the accident was took place
only on the negligence of petitioner. At the cost of repetition, to
substantiate its contention, Insurance company has not placed
positive evidence. Neither the driver of offending vehicle nor
ocular witnesses to the incident was examined by insurance
company to establish its defence.
12. At this juncture it is worth to refer the decision
reported in (2009) 13 SCC 530 between Bimla Devi and
others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others,
wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that, “it is
necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an
accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner
may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The
claimants are merely required to establish their case on the
touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard
of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been
applied”.
SCCH-2 13 M.V.C.No.6710/2018
13. In order to answer issue No.1, Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 are
relevant. As per Ex.P.2, complaint was lodged before
Chilakaluripeta Police Station on 11.08.2018. Thereafter, as
per Ex.P.1, FIR was lodged against the driver of Lorry bearing
Reg.No.AP-03-TC-8748. As per Ex.P.5, charge sheet has been
filed against the driver of lorry.
14. Further, on careful perusal of Ex.P.1, Ex.P.2 and
Ex.P.5, it appears to this Tribunal that, on the basis of
complaint, the police have registered the case against the driver
of the offending vehicle and Investigating officer has submitted
Charge sheet as per Ex.P.5 after completing investigation. A
careful perusal of Ex.P.4, it clearly goes to show that, the
injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road traffic accident.
Further, on perusal of Ex.P.5 i.e., final report, it reveals that,
the driver of offending vehicle i.e., Lorry bearing Reg.No.AP-03-
TC-8748 arrayed as accused.
15. At the cost of repetition, the contents of complaint
and charge sheet clearly reveals that when the petitioner was
traveling in the Lorry bearing Reg.No.AP-03-TC-8748, the driver
of said vehicle drove the same in a rash or negligent manner
SCCH-2 14 M.V.C.No.6710/2018
and dashed against the back side of unknown loaded lorry. The
evidence placed on record clearly reveals that driver of the
offending Lorry bearing Reg.No.AP-03-TC-8748 has caused the
accident. Accordingly, Issue No.1 is answered in the
Affirmative.
16. ISSUE No.2:- This issue is with respect to
entitlement of relief. Already this Tribunal has observed that,
accident was occurred due to rash or negligent driving of the
Lorry bearing Reg.No.AP-03-TC-8748. The 2nd respondent is
the insurer and the 1st respondent is the R.C. owner of the
offending vehicle. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for
compensation. Before going to discuss other aspects, it is
appropriate to discuss the age and income of the petitioner.
17. Age:- According to the petitioner, he was aged 20
years as on the date of accident. In order to substantiate the
same, the petitioner has not produced any documents. The
notarized copy of his Aadhaar Card available on record
discloses that, the date of birth of petitioner is 01.01.1998. The
accident was occurred on 11.08.2018. Hence, the age of the
SCCH-2 15 M.V.C.No.6710/2018
petitioner as on the date of accident was 20 years. Accordingly
the age of the petitioner is considered as 20 years.
18. Income:- In the instant case, the petitioner has stated
that, he was working as a cleaner under the 1 st respondent and
getting monthly salary of Rs.9,000/- and daily bata of
Rs.150/-. Per-contra, the 2nd respondent has denied the
income of petitioner. To substantiate the income of petitioner,
he has not placed any documentary evidence. At this
juncture, it is worth to rely on the decision of the Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka decided in M.F.A. No.101144 of 2020
( MV-I) on 05.07.2023, between Ananda Vs. Arun and
Another, wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Para
9 (b) as hereunder:
” In the absence of any cogent material on
record, it is for the courts and Tribunals to
assess the income notionally. The notional
income fixed by the Karnataka State Legal
Service Authority for the accident of the year
2017 is Rs.10,250/-. In the absence of any
material produced by the claimant to prove
his income, it is appropriate to assess the
notional income of the injured claimant at
Rs.10,250/- per month, and the same is
SCCH-2 16 M.V.C.No.6710/2018assessed as the monthly income of the
injured claimant”.
19. In the absence of authentic document and
supportive evidence, the notional income of the petitioner is to
be considered by relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka referred to above. As per the notional
income fixed by the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority for
the accident in the year 2018 is Rs.12,500/- per month. It is
pertinent to note that, the accident took place on 11.08.2018.
Hence, the notional income of the petitioner is considered as
Rs.12,500/- per month.
20. Loss of Future Income due to disability:-
In the instant case, the petitioner has averred that, he
has sustained closed fracture of shaft of right femur of middle
1/3rd with Degloving injury over ipsilateral right leg, closed
fracture of shaft of 5th metatarsal and segmental fracture of 4 th
metatarsal of left foot, cut end of medial head of gastronomies
visible, extending circumferentially, lacerated wound measuring
3X2 cm., over plantar aspect of left leg. He has produced
wound certificate and discharge summary, which are marked
SCCH-2 17 M.V.C.No.6710/2018as Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.6. On perusal of Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.6, it
reveals that, the petitioner has sustained above mentioned
injuries. It is relevant to mention that, respondent No.2 has
disputed the injuries caused to P.W.1.
21. In order to prove the physical disability/injuries, the
petitioner examined medical witness namely Dr. Arun H.S.,
Professor and Head of the Department of Orthopedics, R.L.
Jalappa Hospital, Kolar as P.W.2. This witness has filed the
affidavit in lieu of evidence and stated that the petitioner was
admitted to R.L. Jalappa Hospital on 13.08.2018 and he has
sustained closed fracture of right femur at middle third area,
closed fracture of 5 metatarsal and segmental fracture of 4
metatarsal of left foot, extensive devolved injury over the
posterior aspect of right knee and leg exposing the muscles
circumferentially with contamination and foul smelling
discharge along with foot drop. Further stated that, the
petitioner has undergone emergency care at causality on the
day of admission and on 14.08.2018 his right femur was
operated by closed reduction and interlocking nail, left foot
wound debridement and k wire fixation for 4 th and 5th
SCCH-2 18 M.V.C.No.6710/2018
metatarsal, on 23.08.2018, wound debridement and VAC
application was done, on 03.09.2018, wound debridement, flap
reconstruction and skin grafting was done. On 04.10.2018, K
wires were removed. Further stated that, the petitioner was
discharged on 10.10.2018. Further deposed that, the
petitioner cannot stand on right leg, he cannot squat and
cannot kneel, he is facing difficulty to take turns, walk on
slope, sit cross leg and climb stairs, discomfort on walking on
plane surface, he has wasting in leg by 8 c.ms. Finally P.W.2
has stated that, petitioner has sustained 68% of disability to
the right lower limb and 23% to the whole body. He was cross-
examined from the side of 2nd respondent at length. During the
course of cross-examination, he has deposed that, he has
conducted surgery to the petitioner. He also admitted that,
implants and K-wires are removed. He also admitted that, as of
now, the petitioner has not taken any treatment. He also
admitted that, the wounds are cured. He also admitted that,
the petitioner did not require further surgery.
22. On perusal of the discharge summary of petitioner
and evidence of medical witness coupled with wound certificate
SCCH-2 19 M.V.C.No.6710/2018
clearly reveals that, petitioner has sustained grievous injury
and suffered physical disability. It is relevant to note that, the
petitioner has produced photographs of the petitioner, which
are marked as Ex.P.9. Ex.P.9 depicts the actual condition of
the right leg of the petitioner. However, considering the
avocation of petitioner and injuries, the physical disability
assessed by the P.W.2 is acceptable. Hence, this Tribunal
considered the physical disability of the injured as 23% to the
whole body.
23. As discussed supra, age of the injured is considered
as 20 years and his income is considered as Rs.12,500/- per
month. Annual income comes to Rs.1,50,000/-(12,500 x 12).
Hence, the proper multiplier applicable to the age of injured as
per Sarala Verma case is 18.
24. If we multiplied yearly income with proper multiplier
(1,50,000X 18), then it comes to Rs.27,00,000/-. Already this
Tribunal has considered the disability of petitioner as 23% to
the whole body. 23% of Rs.27,00,000/- (Rs.27,00,000 X 23
/100) comes to Rs.6,21,000/-. The same amount of
SCCH-2 20 M.V.C.No.6710/2018
Rs.6,21,000/- is awarded to the Injured/Petitioner under the
head of loss of Future Income due to disabiltiy.
25. Medical Expenses:- In the instant case, the
petitioner has stated that, he has incurred huge amount
towards medical expenses. In order to substantiate the
incurring of medical expenses, the petitioner has produced
medical bills as Ex.P.8. A careful perusal of Ex.P.8, it appears
to this Tribunal that, the petitioner has paid Rs.33,600/-
towards inpatient advance bill and Rs.2,800/- towards Lab
Services. Apart from that, the petitioner paid Rs.55,928/-
(after discount)during the treatment taken from 13.08.2018 to
10.10.2018 and Rs.3,050/- (after discount) during the
treatment taken from 16.03.2020 to 23.03.2020 at R.L.
Jalappa Hospital. Further, the petitioner has produced
another set of medical bills marked as Ex.P.12 for Rs.90,486/-.
This Tribunal has carefully perused Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.12. After
careful perusal of the medical bills, this Tribunal is of the
opinion that, petitioner is entitled for Rs.1,85,864/- towards
medical expenses.
SCCH-2 21 M.V.C.No.6710/2018
26. Pain and suffering:- According to the petitioner, he
was shifted to Yeshawi Hospital, Peddakakini road, Guntur
City, Andhra pradesh, wherein he was admitted as an inpatient
for 2 days and thereafter he was shifted to R.L. Jalappa
Hospital, Kolar on 13.08.2018, wherein he has undergone
several surgeries i.e., Closed reguction and internal fixation
with intra modular interlocking nail for right femur, K-wire
fixation for 4th and 5th matetarsal fracture of left foot on
14.08.2018. Further, skin grafting was done on 03.09.2018
and K-wire was removed on 04.10.2018 and 10.10.2018, he
was discharged. Apart from this, the petitioner has produced
photographs. The said photographs are marked as Ex.P.9.
Ex.P.9 depicts the status of injury of the petitioner. As per
medical records and evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.P.9, it
appears to this Tribunal that, the petitioner has taken
treatment at R.L. Jalappa Hospital, Kolar. As per Ex.P.6 and
Ex.P.7, the two Discharge summaries, the petitioner was
admitted at R.L. Jalappa Hospital as inpatient on 13.08.2018
and discharged on 10.10.2018 for a period of 59 days. As per
Ex.P.7, the petitioner has taken treatmenty as an inpatient
SCCH-2 22 M.V.C.No.6710/2018
from 17.03.2020 to 23.03.2020 for the period of 7 days for the
removal of implants. Further as per the evidence of doctor, it
appears to this tribunal that, the petitioner has sustained
physical disability. There is no serious dispute with regard to
inpatient for 59 days at the first instance and 7 days for the
second time. As such, the petitioner suffered a lot of pain and
inconvenience. Considering all these aspects, the Tribunal
grants compensation of Rs.50,000/- under the head of Pain
and Sufferings.
27. Loss of income during the laidup period:- The
petitioner has produced discharge summaries and same have
been marked as Ex.P.6. On perusal of this document, it
appears to this Tribunal that, the petitioner took treatment as
an inpatient for 59 days. However, the petitioner has not
produced documents to show that, how many days he has
taken bed rest. Naturally it shows that, he might have taken
atleast three months rest because of the injuries. He has
averred that, he was working as a cleaner. But he has not
produced documents to substantiate his income. Hence, this
Tribunal has already assessed the income of petitioner as
SCCH-2 23 M.V.C.No.6710/2018
Rs.12,500/- per month. Hence, three months is to be
considered as loss of income during laidup period. Hence, the
petitioner is entitled for Rs.37,500/- as compensation under
the head of loss of income during laid up period.
28. Food, Nourishment and Atttendant charges:-
In so for as food, conveyance, nourishment and other
incidental charges are concerned, the petitioner has taken
treatment as inpatinet for about 59 days i.e., from 13.08.2018
to 10.10.2018 and 7 days i.e., 16.03.2020 to 23.03.2020. The
petitioner has not produced any documents in this regard.
Hence, looking to the injuries sustained and the period of
treatment taken by the petitioner, he is entitled for
compensation of Rs.60,000/- under the head of Food,
Nourishment and Atttendant charges.
29. Loss of future amenities, happiness and marriage
prospectus:- The petitioner was aged about 20 years at the
time of accident. The disability and physical deformity with
which the petitioner has to live the rest of his life. Therefore, he
might have suffered pain, discomforts in life and loss of
amenities. By considering the age, nature of injuries,
SCCH-2 24 M.V.C.No.6710/2018
percentage of disabiltiy, Rs.50,000/- is awarded under this
head.
30. Future medical expenses:- P.W.2 the medical
witness stated that, the petitioner need not required any
further surgery. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for any
compensation towards future medical expenses.
31. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for compensation
under the following heads:
Heads Amount
1.Towards loss of Future income. Rs. 6,21,000/-
2. Towards Medical Expenses. Rs. 1,85,864/-
3. Towards Pain & Suffering.
Rs. 50,000/-
4. Loss of income during the laidup
period Rs. 37,500/-
5. Food, Nourishment and Rs. 60,000/-
Atttendant charges
6. Loss of future amenities, Rs. 50,000/-
happiness and marriage
prospectus
7. Towards future medical expenses. - Nil -
Total. Rs.10,04,364/-
Hence, petitioner is entitled for just and reasonable
amount of Rs.10,04,364/-
SCCH-2 25 M.V.C.No.6710/2018
32. Regarding liability and interest.
Driving License:- According to respondsent No.2, the
driver of offending vehicle has no valid driving licence to drive
the vehicle. However, respondent No.2 has not adduced any
evidence. Charge sheet submitted by IO does not reveals that
the driver of offending vehicle was driving the vehicle without
valid and effective DL. Therefore, it appears to this Tribunal
that, the driver of the offending vehicle was holding valid D.L.
to drive the offending vehicle at the time of accident.
Insurance Policy and liability:- In the instant case,
respondent No.2 has admitted the issuance of insurance policy
with respect to Lorry bearing Reg.No.AP-03-TC-8748. However
contended that, the petitioner was not working as a cleaner and
he was traveling as a gratuitous passenger. In order to
substantiate the same, the 2nd respondent examined its
Administrative officer as R.W.1. He has produced insurance
policy, which is marked as Ex.R.2. During the course of his
cross-examination, he has admitted that, policy was in force as
on the date of accident. He has admitted that, he has no
documents to show that, the petitioner was travelling as a
SCCH-2 26 M.V.C.No.6710/2018
gratuitous passenger. He also admitted that, his company has
issued package policy. He also admitted the receiving of
Rs.50/- each towards IMT. He also admitted that, they have
collected total Rs.100/- towards IMT for the vehicle in question.
Further, R.W.1 volunteers that, the said amount covers for
driver and cleaner, but not gratuitous passenger. Further he
has deposed that, he has issued notice to the owner of the
insured vehicle. However, he has not produced the said notice.
On careful perusal of Ex.R.1, it appears to this Tribunal that,
the insurance company have collected Rs.150/- under IMT 28.
Therefore, the 2nd respondent is liable to pay the compensation
amount to the petitioner. The respondent No.2 has not
produced documents to show regarding the petitioner has
played fraud. Hence, the decisions relied by the 2 nd respondent
will not come to the aid of 2nd respondent.
33. In view of the decision reported in MFA NO: 30131-
2019 dtd, 12.5.2020 rate of interest on the compensation
amount is awarded at 6% p.a. from the date of petition.
Accordingly, Issue No.2 is answered in the Partly Affirmative.
SCCH-2 27 M.V.C.No.6710/2018
34. ISSUE No.3:- In view of discussions made above,
I proceed to pass the following.
:ORDER:
Claim Petition filed by the Petitioner
U/Sec.166 of M.V. Act is partly allowed with
costs of the petition.
Petitioner is awarded just and reasonable
compensation of Rs.10,04,364/- (Rupees Ten
Lakhs Four Thousand Three Hundred and
Sixty Four only) with interest at the rate of 6%
p.a., from the date of petition to till the date of
depositing of the compensation amount in the
Tribunal.
Respondent No.2 shall deposit the
compensation in the Tribunal within 2 months
from the date of this judgment.
Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw Award Accordingly.
:APPORTIONMENT:
On deposit of compensation amount, office
to pay 75% of amount with interest through E-
payment to the petitioner, after due
identification as per rules and after verifying
the stay order from the Hon’ble Appellate Court
and remaining 25% with interest shall be
invested in F.D. in his name in any
SCCH-2 28 M.V.C.No.6710/2018nationalized bank for a period of 3 years. It is
clarified that, the petitioner is at liberty to
withdraw the periodical interest accrued on the
deposit amount from time to time.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by her,
corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the
31st December, 2024).
(H.P. Mohan Kumar)
VI Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes,
and ACJM, MACT, Bengaluru.
: ANNEXURE :
List of witnesses examined for petitioner:
P.W.1 : Sri. V. Raghupathi. P.W.2 : Dr. Arun H.S.
List of exhibited documents marked for petitioner:
Ex.P-1 : Certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.126/2018.
Ex.P-2 : Certified copy of complaint.
Ex.P-2(a) : English translated copy of complaint.
Ex.P-3 : Certified copy of intimation of accident to police.
Ex.P-4 : Certified copy of wound certificate.
Ex.P-5 : Certified copy of charge sheet.
Ex.P-6 : Discharge summary.
Ex.P-7 : Discharge summary.
Ex.P-8 : 9 Hospital bills.
Ex.P-9 : 12 Photographs.
Ex.P-10 : C.D.
SCCH-2 29 M.V.C.No.6710/2018
Ex.P-11 : 72 Medical prescriptions.
Ex.P-12 : 124 Medical bills.
Ex.P-13 : X-ray films.
Ex.P-14 & : 2 Case Sheets.
15
Ex.P.16 : Calculation of Disability.
Ex.P.17 : X-ray film.
List of witnesses examined for the Respondents:
R.W.1 : Sri. Prashanth N.G.
List of exhibited documents marked for the Respondents:
Ex.R-1 : Authorization letter of R.W.1
Ex.R-2 : Insurance Policy pertaining to vehicle No.AP-03-
TC-8748.
Digitally signed
by H P
HP MOHANKUMAR
MOHANKUMAR
Date: 2025.01.04
12:02:24 +0530
(H.P. Mohan Kumar)
VI Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes,
and ACJM, MACT, Bengaluru.