Bangalore District CourtMohangowda.N.R vs The Head Master on 10 February, 2020IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. JUDGE AND MOTOR\n ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU. (SCCH-18)\n\n              Dated: This the 10th day of February 2020\n\n          Present: SRI.MAHANTESH S.DARGAD\n                                    B.Sc., LL.B.,\n                   III ADDL. JUDGE &\n                   MEMBER, MACT,\n                   COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,\n                   BENGALURU.\n\n                      M.V.C.No.380/2019\n\nPETITIONER:          Mohangowda.N.R.\n                     S/o. Ranganath,\n                     Aged about 21 years,\n                     R/at Nambihalli Village,\n                     Dandiagaahalli Hobli,\n                     Channarayapattna Taluk,\n                     Hassan District,\n                                         (By Pleader Sri.CCH)\n                              /Vs./\n\nRESPONDENTS:         1. The Head Master\n                     Siddartha Lower Primary School,\n                     Marenahalli Extension,\n                     Channarayapattna Town,\n                     Hassan District.\n                                      (By pleader Sri.RSR)\n\n                     2. Cholamandalam MS Gen. Insu. Co.Ltd.,\n                                    2                   MVC.No.380/2019\n                                                             SCCH-18\n\n\n\n\n                           Unit No.4, 9th Floor, Level 06,\n                           Golden Heights Complex, 59th "C" Cross,\n                           Industrial Suburb,\n                           Rajajinagar 4th M Block,\n                           Bengaluru -560010.\n                                               (By pleader Sri.KS)\n\n\n                       J U D G M E N TThe petitioner has filed this claim petition against the\n\nrespondents U/S 166 ofM.V. Actfor seeking compensation of\n\nRs.15,00,000/- with interest for the injuries sustained by him in\n\na road traffic accident.2. The brief contents of petition are as under:The contention of petitioner is that, he was hale and\n\nhealthy at the time accident, aged about 21 years, doing real\n\nestate work and earning Rs.20,000/-p.m.3.   Further the allegation of the petitioner is that, on\n\n14-11-2018, at about 9.30 A.M. he was walking on the left side of\n\nthe   road    on   Nambhihalli         village,   Shankaranna   House,3                  MVC.No.380/2019SCCH-18\n\n\n\n\nDandiganahalli Hobli, Channarayapttna Taluk, Hassan District, at\n\nthat time, the driver of one School bus bearing Registration\n\nNo.KA-13-B-9996 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner\n\nand dashed against the petitioner. As a result, petitioner fell\n\ndown and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the\n\naccident,   the   petitioner   was   shifted   to   Punya   hospital,\n\nChannarayapattna, wherein he has taken treatment as an\n\ninpatient and underwent surgery. Further the contention of the\n\npetitioner is that, after discharge from the hospital and as per\n\nthe advice of the doctor, he has taken follow-up treatment as an\n\noutpatient and till today, he is taking treatment as an outpatient.\n\nThe contention of the petitioner is that, he has spent\n\nRs.2,00,000/- towards medical expenses and other incidental\n\ncharges.4.    The contention of the petitioner is that, he has\n\nsustained grievous injuries in the accident and due to the4                MVC.No.380/2019SCCH-18\n\n\n\n\naccidental injuries, he has suffered permanent disablement and\n\nhe is not in a position to work as he was doing earlier to the\n\naccident and as such, he has lost the earning capacity and lost\n\nthe income.5.      The respondent No.1 and 2 are the owner and insurer\n\nof the alleged school bus bearing Reg.No.KA-13-B-9996 and the\n\npolicy was in force as on the date of accident. The accident has\n\noccurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the\n\nalleged vehicle and as such, both the respondents are jointly and\n\nseverally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Contending\n\nthe above facts, he prays to grant for compensation of\n\nRs.15,00,000/- with interest and cost.6.   In response to the petition notice, the respondent\n\nNo.1 and 2 have appeared before the court through their\n\nrespective counsel and filed their written statement.5                    MVC.No.380/2019SCCH-187.   The   brief   contents   of    written   statement   of\n\nrespondent no.1 are as under:The respondent No.1 has contended that, the petition filed\n\nby the petitioner is not maintainable either in law or on facts.\n\nFurther the Respondent No.1 has denied the entire averments of\n\npetition in toto. Further he contended that, the alleged accident\n\nhas not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver\n\nof school bus, on the other hand, the accident has occurred due\n\nto negligence of petitioner himself.      However, this respondent\n\non humanitarian grounds has provided treatment to the\n\npetitioner and also paid a sum of Rs.40,000/- to the petitioner.\n\nFurther the respondent No.1 has denied the age, occupation and\n\nincome of the petitioner and injuries sustained by him and\n\nmedical expenses incurred by him and disablement suffered by\n\nhim.    Further the respondent No.1 admitted that, as on the\n\ndate of accident the alleged vehicle was insured with the\n\nrespondent No.2 and the policy was in force at the time of6                  MVC.No.380/2019SCCH-18\n\n\n\n\naccident and driver of the alleged vehicle was having valid driving\n\nlicense to drive the vehicle. The compensation claimed by the\n\npetitioner is highly arbitrary and speculative.     Contending the\n\nabove facts, he prays to dismiss the claim petition as against the\n\nRespondent No.1 with cost.8.   The   brief   contents    of   written   statement   of\n\nrespondent no.2 are as under:The respondent No.2 has contended that, the claim\n\npetition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Further the\n\nRespondent No.2 has admitted the issuance of policy to the\n\nalleged lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-06-D-9462 and the liability of\n\nthis respondent if any is subject to the terms and conditions\n\nmentioned in the policy.     Further the respondent No.2 has\n\ncontended that, the owner of the alleged vehicle and the\n\nconcerned police have not complied the mandatory provisions ofSec.134(c)and158(6)of MV Act. Further the respondent No.27                 MVC.No.380/2019SCCH-18\n\n\n\n\ncontended that, the driver of the alleged school bus was not\n\nhaving valid and effective driving license and also alleged vehicle\n\nhad no valid FC and permit as on the date of accident.      Hence,\n\nthe respondent No.1 has violated to terms and conditions of the\n\npolicy and as such, this respondent is not liable to indemnify the\n\nrespondent No.1. Further the respondent No.2 contended that,\n\nthe alleged accident has occurred due to contributory negligence\n\non the part of petitioner. Further the respondent No.2 has\n\ndenied the age, occupation and income of the petitioner and\n\ninjuries sustained by him and medical expenses incurred by him\n\nand disablement suffered by him. Further he contended that,\n\nthe compensation claimed by petitioner is highly excessive and\n\narbitrary.   Contending the above facts, he prays to dismiss the\n\nclaim petition as against the respondent No.2 with cost.9. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues\n\nwere framed:8                 MVC.No.380/2019SCCH-181.   Whether the petitioner proves that, he had\n         sustained grievous injuries in an accident that was\n         occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the\n         driver of the Bus bearing Registration\n         No.KA-13-B-9996 on 14-11-2018 at about\n         9.30 A.M. near Nambhihalli Shankaranna House,\n         Dandiganahalli Hobli, Hassan?2.   Whether the petitioner is entitled for\n         compensation as prayed for? If so, at what rate?From whom?3.   What order or award?10. In order to prove the case, the petitioner has\n\nexamined himself as PW-1 and got marked the documents as\n\nEx-P-1 to 11.     Further in support of his evidence, he has\n\nexamined Dr.Mahesh.V as PW-2 and got marked the documents\n\nas Ex-P-12 to 14 and one eyewitness is examined as PW-3.11. On behalf of the respondents no oral and documentary\n\nevidence is adduced.12. Heard the arguments and perused the records.9                    MVC.No.380/2019SCCH-1813. My findings to the aforesaid issues are as follows:Issue No.1: In the Affirmative\n\n                  Issue No.2: In the Partly Affirmative\n\n                  Issue No.3: As per final order\n\n                                for the following:R E A S O N S14. ISSUE NO.1:-. During the course of arguments, the\n\nlearned counsel for the petitioner field written argufmetns by\n\nreiterating the contents of petition and also evidence put forth\n\nby PW-1 to 3.       Further he contended that, as per police\n\ninvestigation papers, the alleged accident has occurred due to\n\nrash and negligent driving of the driver of the alleged school bus\n\nbearing Reg.No.KA-13-B-9996.        Further he contended that, to\n\nprove the disablement suffered by the petitioner, he has\n\nexamined the doctor as PW-3 and as per the opinion of the\n\ndoctor, the petitioner has suffered disability to the extent of\n\n39.75% to the partial and permanent disabilities to right lower10                    MVC.No.380/2019SCCH-18\n\n\n\n\nlimb. Further he contended that, the petitioner has proved his\n\ncase as contended in the petition by producing oral and\n\ndocumentary evidence.      Accordingly, he prays to allow the\n\npetition.15. In support of the arguments, the learned counsel for\n\npetitioner has relied upon the following citations:1. AIR 1980 SC 1354 (N.K.V.Bros. (P) Ltd., Vs. M.Karumari\n\nAmmal and othersetc).2. ILR 2003 KAR 493 (Mallamma Vs. Balaji and others)3. 1980 ACJ 435 (N.K.V.Bros. (P) Ltd., Vs. M.Karumari\n\nAmmal and othersetc).16.   Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent\n\nNo.2 argued by reiterating the contents of objection statement\n\nfiled by the Respondent No.2.        Further he argued that, the\n\nalleged accident has not occurred due to rash and negligent\n\ndriving of the driver of alleged school bus, on the other hand,11                MVC.No.380/2019SCCH-18\n\n\n\n\nthe alleged accident has occurred due to negligence of the\n\npetitioner himself.   Further he argued that, the alleged vehicle\n\nwas implicated by the petitioner colluding with police and as per\n\nMLC record, the accident was taken place in between 2 wheeler\n\nand van, but on facts, the accident was taken place while\n\npetitioner   was   pedestrian.   Further   he   argued that,   the\n\npetitioner has failed to prove his occupation and income as\n\ncontended in the petition by producing proper evidence and\n\ndocuments and also he has failed to prove his case as contended\n\nin the petition by producing proper documents. Accordingly, he\n\nprays to dismiss the petition as against the respondent No.2\n\nwith cost.17.    On rival contention urged by both the counsel,\n\nI intend to discuss the case on merits.On perusal of the evidence available on record, it reveals\n\nthat, to prove the case, the petitioner has examined himself as12                         MVC.No.380/2019SCCH-18\n\n\n\n\nP.W.1 and he has stated in his evidence by reiterating the\n\ncontents of petition. Further in support of his evidence, he has\n\nproduced      the   documents    and     the     same         are   marked\n\nas Ex.P.1 to 11.18.    To prove the involvement of alleged school bus in the\n\nalleged accident and to prove the rash and negligent driving of\n\nthe driver of the alleged school bus, in support of oral evidence,\n\nthe petitioner has produced the copy of police investigation\n\npapers and the same are marked as Ex-P-1 to 5 and 9 i.e. true\n\ncopy of FIR with complaint, vehicle seizure mahazar, MVA\n\nreport, Wound certificate, charge sheet, crime details form\n\nalong with spot mahazar.      On perusal of Ex-P1 & 5 i.e., copy of\n\nFIR    with complaint     and charge sheet,            it    reveals     that,\n\nChannarayapatna Rural police have registered a case in\n\nCr.No.343/2018 as against the driver of the alleged school bus\n\nbearing      Reg.No.KA-13-B-9996       and     after        completion     of13                MVC.No.380/2019SCCH-18\n\n\n\n\ninvestigation, the concerned police have filed the charge sheet\n\nas against the driver of the alleged school bus for the offences\n\npunishable U/s.279 and 338 ofIPC.19. Further the petitioner has examined one B.P.Lokesh as\n\nPw-3, who was eyewitness to the alleged accident.       He has\n\ndeposed that, he had seen the alleged accident and alleged\n\naccident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the\n\ndriver   of    school   bus    bearing   Reg.No.KA-13-B-9996.\n\nThereafter, the counsel for Respondent No.2 has cross-\n\nexamined the PW-1 and 3 at length, but nothing has been\n\nelicited from them in respect to alleged vehicle was implicated\n\nin the accident and accident has occurred due to negligence of\n\npetitioner himself.20. Further to prove the defence, the respondent No.2\n\nhas not examined any eyewitness to the alleged accident and not14             MVC.No.380/2019SCCH-18\n\n\n\n\nproduced any rebuttal documents to disbelieve the case of the\n\npetitioner.21. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the\n\ncase and on perusal of evidence of PW-1 coupled with documents\n\nand for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the oral\n\nversion of the petitioner is supported with corroborative\n\ndocuments and as such, the petitioner has proved that, the\n\nalleged accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving\n\nof the driver of the alleged school bus as contended in the\n\npetition by producing oral and documentary evidence.22. Further on perusal of Ex-P-5 i.e., true copy of Wound\n\ncertificate, it shows that, the petitioner has sustained grievous\n\ninjuries in the above accident.23.In addenda of this, in a claim for compensation\n\nU/S.166of MV Act, 1988, the claimant is to prove the incident\n\nonly on preponderance of probabilities and the standard of proof15              MVC.No.380/2019SCCH-18\n\n\n\n\nbeyond reasonable doubt is not required as held by Hon'ble Apex\n\nCourt in the decision reported in 2011 SAR (Civil) 319 (Kusum and\n\nothers Vs. Satbir and others).24. Considering the above facts and circumstance of the\n\ncase and on appreciation of evidence of PW-1 coupled with\n\ndocuments and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that,\n\nthe petitioner has proved this issue by producing         proper\n\ndocuments. Accordingly, I answer this issue in the affirmative.25. ISSUE      NO.2:- The specific contention of the\n\npetitioner is that, he was hale and healthy at the time of\n\naccident, aged about 21 years, doing real estate business and\n\nearning Rs.20,000/-p.m.          Further the contention of the\n\npetitioner is that, he has sustained grievous injuries in the\n\naccident and due to the accidental injuries, he has suffered\n\npermanent disablement and he is not in a position to work as he16                MVC.No.380/2019SCCH-18\n\n\n\n\nwas doing earlier to the accident and as such, he has lost the\n\nearning capacity and lost the income.On the other hand, the respondents        have denied the\n\nabove contention of the petitioner in toto.26.    To prove the age, the petitioner has produced the\n\nnotarized copy of election ID card and the same is marked as\n\nEx-P-6,     wherein, date of birth of petitioner is shown as\n\n13-2-1998 and the same is considered as date of birth of\n\npetitioner, then it is clear that, as on the date of accident, he\n\nwas aged about 20 years. Hence, the proper multiplier applicable\n\nto the case on hand is '18'.27. To prove the occupation and income, the petitioner has\n\nnot produced any records. However, on perusal of facts of the\n\ncase and charge sheet wherein, the occupation of the petitioner\n\nis mentioned as working in a private firm at the time of accident.\n\nConsidering the above facts and in the absence of positive17             MVC.No.380/2019SCCH-18\n\n\n\n\ndocuments regarding the occupation and income of the petitioner\n\nand for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, if the income\n\nof the petitioner is considered as Rs.8,500/-p.m., certainly it\n\nwould meet the ends of justice.28.   Further to prove the disablement suffered by the\n\npetitioner, he has examined Dr.Mahesh.V, working as an\n\nOrthopedic surgeon at Punya Hospital, Channarayapatna town,\n\nHassan as PW-2, who has stated in his evidence that, the\n\npetitioner has sustained Pain, swelling and deformity of right\n\nthigh, fracture of shaft femur. Further the PW-2 has stated\n\nthat, the petitioner has underwent surgery with IM interlocking\n\nnail and PW-2 has stated regarding the difficulties facing by the\n\npetitioner and also stated that, the petitioner has suffered\n\npartial permanent disability of right lower limb to the extent of\n\n39.75%.18                MVC.No.380/2019SCCH-1829. Thereafter, the learned counsel for the respondent\n\nNo.2 has cross-examined the PW-2 at length. On perusal of the\n\nentire evidence of PW-2, it reveals that,     PW-2 is a treated\n\ndoctor and fracture is slightly mal-united implants in situ. On\n\n16-9-2019 PW-2 has examined the petitioner for assessment of\n\ndisability. Considering the above facts and looking to the nature\n\nof injuries sustained by the petitioner and looking to the age and\n\noccupation of the petitioner, I am of the opinion that, if the\n\nextent of disability suffered by the petitioner is considered as\n\n12% to the whole body certainly it would meet the ends of\n\njustice.30. The income of the petitioner is considered as\n\nRs.8,500/- P.M. and disability is considered as 12% to the whole\n\nbody and multiplier 18 is applied, then the loss of income due to\n\ndisability   comes   to   Rs.2,20,320/-   (8,500x12x12/100x18).\n\nConsidering the above facts and for the above reason, I deem it19                MVC.No.380/2019SCCH-18\n\n\n\n\njust     and    reasonable   to   grant   for   compensation     of\n\nRs.2,20,400/- under the head of loss of future earnings.31.     Further on perusal of Ex.P.4 i.e. copy of wound\n\ncertificate, it shows that, the petitioner has sustained the\n\nfollowing injuries:-1. Pain / swelling / deformity right thigh - Fracture of left\n\nfemur.Further on perusal of Ex-P-4 it reveals that, as per the\n\nopinion of doctor, the above injury is grievous in nature.\n\nConsidering the above facts and looking to the nature of injuries,\n\nI deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation of\n\nRs.35,000/- under the head of Pain and sufferings.32. Further as stated above that, the petitioner has\n\nsuffered disability to the extent of 12% to the whole body and\n\nthe said disability may affect some extent on the occupation of\n\nthe petitioner and the petitioner has to suffer throughout his20                 MVC.No.380/2019SCCH-18\n\n\n\n\nlife along with the said disability. Considering the above facts\n\nand for the above reason, I deem it just and reasonable to grant\n\nfor compensation of Rs.15,000/- under the head of loss of\n\namenities.33. Further on perusal of Ex-P-11 i.e. discharge summary,\n\nit shows that, the petitioner has taken treatment as an inpatient\n\nfrom 14-11-2018 to 20-11-2018 i.e. for a period of 7 days at\n\nPunya hospital, Channarayapatna.    Considering the above facts\n\nand looking to the period of hospitalization, I deem it just and\n\nreasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.10,000/- under the\n\nhead of attendant, nourishment and conveyance charges.34.     To prove the medical expenses incurred by the\n\npetitioner, he has produced medical bills and the same are\n\nmarked at Ex-P-7. On the other hand, the respondent No.2 has\n\ndisputed the genuineness of the said bills and to that effect, the\n\ncounsel for the respondent No.2 has cross examined the PW-1 at21                MVC.No.380/2019SCCH-18\n\n\n\n\nlength, but nothing has been elicited from him to disbelieve\n\nthose bills. Further on perusal of evidence of PW-1 coupled with\n\nEx-P-7 -medical bills, it shows that, the petitioner has spent an\n\namount of Rs.74,866/- towards medical expenses.       Considering\n\nthe above facts, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for\n\ncompensation of Rs.74,900/- under the head of medical\n\nexpenses.35.    Further due to the accidental injuries, the petitioner\n\nmight not have attended his regular work at least for a period of\n\n4 months as he has sustained fracture shaft of femur and he\n\nwas hospitalized for a period of 7 days and as such, if 3\n\nmonths income is awarded under the head of loss of income\n\nduring laid up period and rest period certainly it would meet the\n\nends of justice. Considering the above facts and for the above\n\nreason, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation22                MVC.No.380/2019SCCH-18\n\n\n\n\nof Rs.25,500/-under the head of loss of income during laid up\n\nperiod and rest period.36.   The PW-2 Doctor has stated that, the petitioner\n\nadvised to undergo surgery for removal of implant, which would\n\ncost around Rs.40,000/- to 50,000/-.    But in support of his\n\nversion, the PW-2 has not produced any estimation regarding the\n\ncost of surgery. Considering the above facts and in the absence\n\nof positive documents regarding cost of future medical expenses\n\nand looking to the nature of surgery, I deem it just and\n\nreasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.20,000/-under the\n\nhead of future medical expenses.Considering the above facts and circumstances of the\n\ncase and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the\n\npetitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs.4,00,800/-\n\nunder the following heads:23               MVC.No.380/2019SCCH-18\n\n\n\n\n            Compensation heads             Compensation\n                                              amount1. Towards Pain and suffering         Rs.    35,000/-2. Towards Loss of amenities          Rs.    15,000/-3. Towards Nourishment, conveyance Rs.       10,000/-\n   & attendant charges4. Towards Medical expenses           Rs.    74,900/-5. Towards loss of future income      Rs. 2,20,400/-6. Towards Loss of income during laid Rs.   25,500/-\n   up period & rest period7. Towards future medical expenses    Rs.   20,000/-Total                Rs. 4,00,800/-37. LIABILITY: On perusal of the contents of petition\n\nand contents of objection statement, it reveals that, the\n\nrespondent No.1 and 2 are the owner and insurer of alleged\n\nschool bus bearing Reg.No.KA-13-B-9996 and the policy was in\n\nforce as on the date of accident. Further as stated above that,\n\nthe accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of\n\nthe driver of the alleged school bus. Therefore, the respondent\n\nNo.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to\n\nthe petitioner. However, the respondent No.2 being the insurer24                  MVC.No.380/2019SCCH-18\n\n\n\n\nof the alleged vehicle is liable to pay compensation with interest\n\n@ 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.Accordingly, I answer the issue No.2 in the partly affirmative.38.     ISSUE NO.3: In view of above discussion on issue\n\nNos.1 & 2, I proceed to pass the following;O R D E R\n\n              The claim petition filed by the petitioner\n\n      U/S.166of M.V.Act is hereby partly allowed with\n\n      cost.The petitioner is entitled for compensation of\n\n      Rs.4,00,800/- with interest @ 8% p.a. (future\n\n      medical expenses does not carry any interest) from\n\n      the date of petition till the date of deposit.The respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and\n\n      severally     liable   to   pay    compensation    to   the\n\n      petitioner.     However, in view of the policy, the25                   MVC.No.380/2019SCCH-18\n\n\n\n\n     respondent No.2- insurance company is directed to\n\n     deposit the compensation amount in this tribunal\n\n     within two months from the date of this order.After deposit of compensation amount,              an\n\n     amount of 40% shall be kept in FD in the name of\n\n     petitioner   in   any    nationalized/schedule    bank   of\n\n     petitioner's choice for a period of 3 years and\n\n     remaining amount of 60% with accrued interest shall\n\n     be released in the name of petitioner through account\n\n     payee cheque on proper identification.Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.Draw award accordingly.(Dictated to the stenographer transcribed by her, corrected,\nsigned and then pronounced by me in open court on this 10th day\nof February 2020).(MAHANTESH S.DARAGD)\n                             III ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE\n                                    & ACMM, BANGALORE.26                   MVC.No.380/2019SCCH-18\n\n\n\n\n                     ANNEXURES\nList of witnesses examined on petitioner's side:P.W.1.     Mohan Gowda.N.R.\nP.W.2.     Dr.Mahesh.V\nP.W3.      B.P.Lokesh\n\nList of documents exhibited on petitioner's side:Ex-P1            True copy of FIR with complaint\nEx-P2            True copy of seizure mahazar\nEx-P3            True copy of MVA report\nEx-P4            True copy of Wound certificate\nEx-P5            True copy of charge sheet\nEx-P6            Notarized copy of election ID card\nEx-P7            Medical bills\nEx-P8            Prescriptions\nEx-P9            True copy of crime details form with spot\n                 mahazar\nEx-P10           Prescriptions\nEx-P11           Discharge summary\nEx-P12           True copy of MLC extractEx-P13Case sheet\nEx-P14           X-raysList of   witnesses examined on respondent's side:--None-List of documents exhibited on respondent's side:-Nil-III ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE\n                               & ACMM.