Bangalore District CourtIn M.V.C.No. 7606 /2016 vs In M.V.C.No. 7606/2016 on 24 April, 2018IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL. SMALL CAUSES AND ADDL.
                 MACT., BANGALORE, (SCCH-7)
                 Dated this 24th Day of April 2018
          PRESENT: SMT. SUJATHA, S. B. COM., LL.B.,
             IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM,
                            Court of Small Causes,
                      Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.

                 M.V.C. NOS.7606 C/w 7607/2016

PETITIONER IN M.V.C.NO. 7606 /2016

Sri. Afzal Saba @ Abjal Saba @ Abbjal Khan,
S/o Mehabub Sab,
Aged about 42 years,
R/at Islampura,
Near Mubarak Sangha,
Nelamangala Taluk,
Banglaore Rural District.

(By Sri.T.Mohan, Adv.)

                         -VS-

RESPONDENTS IN M.V.C.NO. 7606/2016:

1. Shakunthala.,
W/o Raviprakasha.L.,
Araledibba,
T.Begur Post,
Nelamangala Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District.

(Owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.KA-52-M-3127)

2. The Manager,
The New India Assurance Insurance Company Ltd.,
 SCCH 7                             2                 M.V.C.No.7606/2016
                                                 C/w M.V.C.No.7607/2016


2B, Unity Building Annexe,
P.Kalinga Rao Road,
Bangalore - 560 027.

(Policy No.67230431150300000394
Valid from 25.01.2016 to 24.01.2017)

(R1 Exparte)
(R2 By K.B. Mallikarjuna, Adv.,)

PETITIONER IN M.V.C.NO. 7607 /2016

Arbia,
D/o Abjal Saba @ Abbjal Khan @ Abjal Saba,
Aged about 5 years,
R/at Islampura,
Near Mubarak Sangha,
Nelamangala Taluk,

Since Petitioner is minor, represented by
Natural guardian her father Abjal Saba @ Abbjal Khan @ Abjal Saba.

(By Sri.T.Mohan, Adv.)

                         -VS-

RESPONDENTS IN M.V.C.NO. 7606/2016:

1. Shakunthala.,
W/o Raviprakasha.L.,
Araledibba,
T.Begur Post,
Nelamangala Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District.

(Owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.KA-52-M-3127)

2. The Manager,
The New India Assurance Insurance Company Ltd.,
 SCCH 7                             3                  M.V.C.No.7606/2016
                                                  C/w M.V.C.No.7607/2016


2B, Unity Building Annexe,
P.Kalinga Rao Road,
Bangalore - 560 027.

(Policy No.67230431150300000394
Valid from 25.01.2016 to 24.01.2017)

(R1 Exparte)
(R2 By K.B. Mallikarjuna, Adv.,)


                             JUDGMENTThese two petitions are filed under Section 166 of I.M.V. Act. As
per the order dated 14.08.2017, M.V.C.No.7607/2016 is clubbed with
M.V.C.No.7606/2016 and M.V.C.No.7606/2016 is considered as main
case.2. The Brief facts of the petitioner's case in M.V.C.No.7606/2016: on
14.08.2016 at about 7-00 p.m., when he was traveling along with his
daughter in his two wheeler bearing registration No.KA-06-EG-1920
from his home towards Thyamagondlu on the left side of the road
when he was reached near T.Begur - Thyamagondlu Road, Ambika
College, the driver of Car bearing registration No.KA-52-M-3127
drove the same from Thyamagondlu towards T.Begur in high speed,
rash and negligent manner and dashed against his vehicle and
caused accident and due to impact he sustained fracture of right tibia
and fibula, fracture of Greater Thocanter OPF right femur and other
injuries all over the body. Petitioner stated that immediately he was
shifted to V.P. Magnas Hospital, Nelamangala and then he was
shifted to Victoria Hospital, wherein he was admitted as an inpatient
 SCCH 7                             4                     M.V.C.No.7606/2016
                                                     C/w M.V.C.No.7607/2016


for 15 days. Petitioner stated that he incurred Rupees 70,000/-
towards medicine, Hospital charges etc. Petitioner stated that the
Nelamangala Rural Police have registered a case in Crime
No.336/2016 underSection 279and337of IPC against the driver of
the offending vehicle. Petitioner stated that at the time of accident, he
was hale and healthy and he was working as a Stone Cutter and he
was earning monthly income of Rupees 15,000/- and he is under bed
rest and not able to do his work. Under these circumstances, the
petitioner in M.V.C. No.7606/2016 prayed to allow the petition.3. The Brief facts of the petitioner's case in M.V.C.No.7607/2016: on
14.08.2016 at about 7-00 p.m., when she was traveling along with her
father in his two wheeler bearing registration No.KA-06-EG-1920 from
her home towards Thyamagondlu on the left side of the road when
they reached near T.Begur - Thyamagondlu Road, Ambika College,
the driver of Car bearing registration No.KA-52-M-3127 drove the
same from Thyamagondlu towards T.Begur in high speed, rash and
negligent manner and dashed against their vehicle and caused
accident and due to impact she sustained fracture of nose, cut
lacerated wound over right chin measuring 2 cm., X 3 cm and other
injuries all over the body. The minor guardian of Petitioner stated that
immediately she was shifted to V.P. Magnas Hospital, Nelamangala
and then he was shifted to Victoria Hospital, wherein she was
admitted as an inpatient for one week. The Petitioner stated that he
incurred Rupees 50,000/- towards medicine, Hospital charges etc.
Petitioner stated that the Nelamangala Rural Police have been
registered a case in Crime No.336/2016 underSection 279and337SCCH 7                                5                      M.V.C.No.7606/2016
                                                         C/w M.V.C.No.7607/2016


ofIPCagainst the driver of the offending vehicle. Petitioner stated
that at the time of accident, his daughter was hale and healthy and
she was studying Pre-Nursery and now she is suffering from loss of
memory and sustained mental agony. Under these circumstances,
the petitioner in M.V.C. No.7607/2016 prayed to allow the petition.4.       Inspite of service of Notice, Respondents No.1 not appeared
before the court, hence he was placed as Exparte. Respondent No.2
appeared through the Counsel and filed separate objection
statements in MVC.No.7606/2016 and MVC.No.7607/2016.5. In the objection statement the Respondent No.2 stated that the
petitions are not maintainable either in law or on facts. Respondent
No.2 denied entire case of the Petitioners. Respondent No.2 stated
that the alleged accident is said to have taken place on 14.08.2016
but reported to the Police on 15.08.2016, there is delay of one day in
reporting the alleged accident to the Police and it appears the insured
Car      bearing   registration   No.KA-52-M-3127       has    been    falsely
implicated by the Police for the alleged accident only to help the
Petitioners to have wrongful gain by way of compensation from the
Respondent. Respondent No.2 admitted issuance of                   Insurance
Policy in respect of the Car bearing registration No.KA-52-M-3127
and       stated     it   has      issued      Insurance      Policy      vide
No.67230431150300000394 valid from 25.01.2016 to 24.01.2017 in
respect of the said Car bearing registration No.KA-52-M-3127 in
favour of the Respondent No.1, which is subject to terms and
conditions of Policy and the liability of it if any, is subject to the validity
of RC, FC and permit of the vehicle and also the Driving Licence of
 SCCH 7                             6                     M.V.C.No.7606/2016
                                                     C/w M.V.C.No.7607/2016


the driver of the vehicles involved in the alleged accident.
Respondent No.2 denied the age, avocation and income of Petitioner
in M.V.C.No.7606/2016. Respondent No.2 denied the injuries
sustained    by   the   Petitioners    in   M.V.C.No.7606/2016        and
M.V.C.No.7607/2016, nature of injuries, treatment taken by them,
period of treatment and medical expenses incurred by them. The
Respondent No.2 stated that, alleged injuries sustained by the
petitioners no way affect their day to day life and injuries sustained by
the petitioner in MVC 7607/2016 not all affected her education and
day to activities. Respondent No.2 stated that the alleged accident, if
any was head on collision between two vehicles, caused due to the
negligence of the Petitioner himself, who was unmindful of the traffic
and movement of vehicle on road, dashed to the Car and caused the
alleged accident, but the Police without proper investigation
deliberately filed Charge Sheet against the driver of the insured Car,
because the Car is a bigger vehicle only to help the Petitioners to
have wrongful gain by way of compensation. The Respondent No.2
stated that the owner of Car has not complied with provisions ofSection 134 (C)of IMV Act. Further the jurisdictional Police have not
complied withSection 158 (6)of IMV Act. Respondent No.2 stated
that the rider of Motor Cycle had no valid Driving Licence authorizing
him to ride the Motor Cycle and the driver of the insured Car also had
no valid Driving Licence to drive the Car at the time of accident and
the Respondent No.1 knowingly and willfully entrusted the vehicle to
a person who had no valid Driving Licence and there is breach of
terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and violation of the
provisions of theMotor Vehicle Actand Rules. Respondent No.2
 SCCH 7                            7                    M.V.C.No.7606/2016
                                                   C/w M.V.C.No.7607/2016


stated that two vehicles had involved in the alleged accident and the
Petitioner has not impleaded the owner and insurer of the Motor
Cycle bearing registration No.KA-06-EG-1920 as parties to this
petition, hence petition is bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary
parties.6.       Further in both cases the Respondent No.2 filed additional
objection statement stating that, that the Petitioner in MVC 7606/2016
being the rider of Motor Cycle along with his daughter as a pillion
rider, were not wearing helmet and thereby violated the traffic rules
and the provision ofMotor Vehicle Act. Further as per the recent
ruling of the Hon'bel High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore the victims
of the road traffic accident viz., the rider and pillion rider of two
wheeler without wearing helmet that too of ISI mark are not entitled to
seek any compensation from the Insurance Companies, hence on
this ground alone the above petitions are to be dismissed.
Respondent No.2 stated that the Petitioner had no valid Driving
Licence authorizing him to ride the Motor Cycle and the Petitioner has
led evidence and examined himself as P.W.1 and produced certain
documents, but he has not produced his Driving Licence. Thus the
Petitioner was not entitled to ride the Motor Cycle on the road without
valid Driving Licence and the provisions ofMotor Vehicle Actand
rules prohibit any person to ride any particular class of Motor Vehicle
on road without valid Driving Licence and hence the Petitioners are
not entitled to seek for any compensation as a result of the alleged
accident. Respondent No.2 stated that if the claim is allowed and any
liability is fixed on Insurance Company to indemnify the Respondent
 SCCH 7                               8                   M.V.C.No.7606/2016
                                                     C/w M.V.C.No.7607/2016


No.1 owner of the Car to pay any compensation to the Petitioner, the
Insurance Company would suffer irreparable loss, hardship and
inconvenience, which cannot be compensated by any means and no
hardship whatsoever would be caused to the Petitioner if the claim
petitions are dismissed. Under these circumstances the Respondent
No.2 prayed to dismiss the petition in MVC.No.7606/2016 and
MVC.No.7607/2016.7.       On the basis of the above pleadings, issues are framed as
follows:ISSUES IN M.V.C.7606/20161. Whether Petitioner proves that on 14.08.2016 at
              about 7.00 p.m., while he was riding is Two Wheeler
              bearing registration No.KA-06-EG-1920, near T.
              Begur - Thyamagondlu Road, suddenly the driver of
              Car bearing registration No.KA-52-M-3127, driven
              the same in a high speed, rash and negligent
              manner dashed against him and caused accident,
              resulting which he sustained injuries?2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for compensation?If so, to what extent and from whom?3. What Order or award?ISSUES IN M.V.C.7607/20161. Whether Petitioner proves that on 14.08.2016 at
              about 7.00 p.m., while she was proceeding two
              wheeler as a pillion rider bearing registration No.KA-
              06-EG-1920, near T. Begur - Thyamagondlu Road,
              suddenly the driver of Car bearing registration
              No.KA-52-M-3127, driven the same in a high speed,
 SCCH 7                               9                      M.V.C.No.7606/2016
                                                        C/w M.V.C.No.7607/2016


              rash and negligent manner dashed against said two
              wheeler and caused accident, resulting which she
              sustained injuries?2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for compensation?
              If so, to what extent and from whom?3. What Order?8. In order to prove their case, the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.7606/2016
got examined as P.W.1 and got marked 11 documents as Ex.P1 to
P11. The petitioner in M.V.C.No.7606/2016 is the father of minor
Petitioner in M.V.C. No.7607/2016 and he got examined as P.W.2
and got marked one document as per Ex.P.12. On behalf of
Petitioner in M.V.C.No.7606/2016 Dr. Ramesh.B., got examined as
P.W.3 and got marked 3 document as per Ex.P.13 to Ex.P.15. On
behalf of Respondent No.2, witness by name Sri.S.Rajanna, Head
Constable, Rajanukunte Police Station, got examined as RW.1.,
S.Raju, RTO, Haveri got examined RW.2 and Legal Assistant of
Insurance Company got examined as RW.3 and got marked two
documents as per Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2.9.    Heard the arguments.10.      My findings on the above said issues are as under:Issues No.1 in
M.V.C.No.7606/2016 and
M.V.C.No.7607/2016                       : In the Affirmative.Issues No.2 in
M.V.C.No.7606/2016 and
M.V.C.No.7607/2016                       : Partly in the Affirmative
 SCCH 7                           10                       M.V.C.No.7606/2016
                                                      C/w M.V.C.No.7607/2016




Issues No.3 in
M.V.C.No.7606/2016 and
M.V.C.No.7607/2016                 :   As per final Order
for the following:

                             REASONS11. Issue No.1 in M.V.C.No.7606/2016 and M.V.C.No.7607/2016:P.W.1 stated that on 14.08.2016 at about 7-00 p.m., when he was
traveling along with his     daughter in his two wheeler bearing
registration   No.KA-06-EG-1920        from    his      home      towards
Thyamagondlu on the left side of the road when he reached near
T.Begur - Thyamagondlu Road, Ambika College, the driver of Car
bearing   registration   No.KA-52-M-3127      drove    the   same     from
Thyamagondlu towards T.Begur in high speed, rash and negligent
manner and dashed against his vehicle and caused accident and due
to impact he sustained fracture of right tibia and fibula, fracture of
Greater Thocanter OPF right femur and other injuries all over the
body. P.W.1 stated that immediately he was shifted to V.P. Magnas
Hospital, Nelamangala and then he was shifted to Victoria Hospital,
wherein he was admitted as an inpatient for 30 days. Further P.W.1
stated that his minor daughter also sustained injuries in the said
accident and she was shifted to V.P. Magnas Hospital, Nelamangala
and thereafter she was shifted to Victoria Hospital, where in she took
treatment for a one week. P.W.1 stated that, accident occurred due to
rash and negligent act of driver of Car bearing registration No.KA-52-
M-3127.SCCH 7                             11                  M.V.C.No.7606/2016
                                                   C/w M.V.C.No.7607/201612.      In order to substantiate his contention, P.W.1 has produced
Ex.P1-FIR, Ex.P2- Complaint, Ex.P3 Wound Certificate, Ex.P.4 Spot
Mahazar, Ex.P.5 IMV Report, Ex.P.6 Charge Sheet, Ex.P.7 OPD
Book and Ex.P.8 Discharge Summary. Further he has produced
Ex.P.12 Wound Certificate of Petitioner in M.V.C No.7607/2016. In
the cross-examination by the counsel for Respondent No.2, P.W.1
stated that he has got Driving Licence to ride the Motor Cycle and the
said Driving Licence was lost at the time of accident. P.W.1 denied
the suggestion that the said accident occurred due to his rash and
negligent act. P.W.1 stated that he was riding the Motor Cycle very
slowly, by seeing the Car he suddenly applied the break, due to
impact his daughter fell down from the Motor Cycle. In further cross-examination P.W.1 denied the suggestion that he and his daughter
was not wearing helmet at the time of accident. P.W.1 stated that
Police have not enquired him and recorded his statement. P.W.1
admitted that he has not produced Driving Licence before the
Investigating Officer.13.      In this case on going through Ex.P.1 FIR and Ex.P.2 Complaint
it is noticed that one Moula has lodged complaint on 15.08.2016 and
based on his complaint Nelamangala Rural Police have registered
Crime No.336/2016 against the driver of Car bearing registration
No.KA-52-M-3127 for the offences punishable underSection 279and337of IPC. Ex.P.3 Wound Certificate reveals that the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.7606/2016 sustained multiple fracture of right tibia and
fibula and fracture of greater trocanter OPF right femur in a road
traffic accident occurred on 14.08.2016. Ex.P.12 Wound Certificate
 SCCH 7                           12                   M.V.C.No.7606/2016
                                                  C/w M.V.C.No.7607/2016


reveals that the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.7607/2016 sustained abrasion
over the nose, right cheek and cut lacerated wound over right chin
measuring 2 cm., X 3 cm in a road traffic accident occurred on
14.08.2016. Ex.P.4 Spot Mahazar reveals that the said accident
occurred on T.Begur - Thymagondlu Road, Opposite Ambika
College. In Ex.P.5 IMV Report the Motor Vehicle Inspector reported
that right side fender, rear view mirror and front mud guard and
bumper of vehicle bearing registration No.KA-52-M-3127 sustained
damages. Ex.P.8 Discharge Summary issued by Victoria Hospital
reveals that the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.7606/2016 took treatment as
an inpatient from 15.08.2016 to 13.09.2016. Further as per Ex.P6 the
Investigation Officer filed the charge sheet against one Puttaraju the
driver of Car bearing registration No.KA-52-M-3127 for the offences
punishable underSection 279and337of IPC. In the cross
examination of P.W.1 nothing contrary is elicited to prove that, there
is contributory negligence on his part to the accident dated
14.08.2106. Further Respondent No.2 not produced cogent evidence
before the court to prove that, the accident occurred due to rash and
negligent act of petitioner. Under the circumstances, the oral and
documentary evidence produced by the petitioners proved that, said
accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of driver of Car
bearing registration No.KA-52-M-3127 and in the said accident
Petitioners    in   M.V.C.No.7606/2016    and   M.V.C.No.7607/2016
sustained injuries. For the aforesaid reasons, I have answered
Issue No.1 in M.V.C.No.7606/2016 and M.V.C.No.7607/2016 in the
Affirmative.SCCH 7                             13                    M.V.C.No.7606/2016
                                                     C/w M.V.C.No.7607/201614.      Issue No.2 in M.V.C.No.7606/2016: P.W.1 stated that in the
accident he sustained fracture of right tibia and fibula, fracture of
Greater Thocanter OPF right femur and other injuries all over the
body. P.W.1 stated that immediately he was shifted to V.P. Magnas
Hospital, Nelamangala and then he was shifted to Victoria Hospital,
wherein he was admitted as an inpatient for 30 days. P.W.1 has
produced Ex.P.3 Wound Certificate and Ex.P.8 Discharge Summary.
Further the Petitioner got examined Dr.Ramesh.B., as P.W.3. He has
produced Ex.P.13 Inpatient Record, Ex.P.14 OPD Slip and Ex.P15-
X-Ray film. In this case on going through documents on records and
evidence on Doctor it is clear that petitioner has sustained closed
fracture of neck of right femur, type I open fracture right leg both bone
in a road traffic accident occurred on 14.08.2016 and he was
admitted at Victoria Hospital on 15.08.2106 and he underwent ORIF
of acetabulum, CC screws for neck of femur, locking plate for right
tibia was done in the Victoria hospital and Petitioner was discharged
on 13.09.2016. The petitioner took treatment as an inpatient for a
period of 30 days. Under the circumstances by considering injuries
sustained by the Petitioner and treatment taken by him and
hospitalization, I am of the opinion that, it is reasonable to award
Rupees 70,000/- under the head of pain and suffering.15.       P.W.1 deposed that, he spent Rupees 70,000/- towards
medicine and other incidental expenses. In this regard P.W.1 has
produced Ex.P7 OPD Book, Ex.P.9 - 10 Hospital and Medical Bills to
the tune of Rupees 4,830/- and Ex.P.10 - 16 Prescriptions. In the
cross-examination by the counsel for Respondent No.2 P.W.1 denied
 SCCH 7                              14                   M.V.C.No.7606/2016
                                                     C/w M.V.C.No.7607/2016


the suggestion that he has not spent Rupees 70,000/- towards
medical expenses and         Ex.P.9 Medical Bills are created for the
purpose of this case. In this case as already discussed the Petitioner
sustained multiple fracture of right tibia and fibula and fracture of
greater trocanter OPF right femur and also taken treatment for a
period of 30 days as an inpatient. Under the circumstances, it is
reasonable to award Rupees 4,830/- under the head of medical
expenses       and   Rupees     10,000/-   towards   special   diet   and
Conveyance.16.      P.W.1 stated that, prior to the accident he was hale and healthy
and he was working as a Stone Cutter and earning a sum of Rupees
15,000/- p.m. P.W.1 stated that due to accidental injuries he was not
in a position to work. P.W.1 stated that as per advice of Doctor he
has taken follow-up treatment. In the cross-examination by the
counsel for Respondent No.2 P.W.1 stated that he has got voters
identity card and Aadhar Card and there no impediment for him to
produce those documents. In the case on hand the petitioner has not
produced any document with regard to age proof. Further he has not
produced any document with regard to his income. As per entries
found in Ex.P11 Ration Card, the date of issuance of Ration Card is
23.11.2012, wherein the age of petitioner is shown as 38 years. As
such as on the date of accident the age of petitioner is about 42
years. It is to be noted that in order to lead his life the Petitioner has
to do some avocation and earn income, however as the Petitioner
has not produced any documents to prove his income, this Court
considered the notional income of the Petitioner as Rupees 9,000/-SCCH 7                             15                    M.V.C.No.7606/2016
                                                     C/w M.V.C.No.7607/2016p.m. As already discussed the Petitioner has sustained multiple
fracture of right tibia and fibula and fracture of greater trocanter OPF
right femur and at least 4 months is required for the Petitioner to
recoup. During that period the Petitioner was not in a position to work
and the said loss is to be compensated. Under the circumstances, it
is reasonable to award compensation of Rupees 36,000/- under the
head of loss of earning during treatment period.17.   P.W.1 deposed that due to accidental injuries, he sustained
permanent physical disability. The Petitioner got examined Dr.
Ramesh.B, as P.W.3. He deposed that recently he examined the
Petitioner on 13.09.2017 for assessment of disability. P.W.3 stated
that the Petitioner sustained permanent physical disability at 65% of
right lower limb and 32.5% to the whole body. P.W.3 has produced
Ex.P.13 Inpatient Record, Ex.P.14 OPD Slip and Ex.P.15 X-ray Film.
In the cross-examination by the counsel for Respondent No.2 P.W.3
stated that he is the one Doctor among the Doctors who have given
treatment to the Petitioner. P.W.3 admitted that in case sheet his
name is not mentioned. P.W.3 stated that on 13.09.2017 when he
has seen the Petitioner he was walking with external support. P.W.3
admitted that in the case sheet it has not been mentioned that there
is shortening of right lower limp of Petitioner. P.W.3 stated that except
clinical note he has not produced any document before the Court to
show that there is shortening of right lower limb by 3 inches. P.W.3
stated that except neck of femur other fractures are united. P.W.3
denied the suggestion that he has falsely assessed 65% disability to
right lower limb and 32% disability to the whole body in order to help
 SCCH 7                             16                  M.V.C.No.7606/2016
                                                   C/w M.V.C.No.7607/2016


the Petitioner.   As per the evidence of Doctor it is clear that he has
not assessed functional disability of Petitioner. In the case on hand
as per the evidence of Doctor and Medical Record the Petitioner has
sustained multiple fracture of right tibia and fibula and fracture of
greater trocanter OPF right femur. As already discussed as on the
date of accident the Petitioner was aged about 42 years and the
injuries sustained by him will affect his day to day life and avocation
to some extent. Such being the case, by looking into the injuries
sustained by the Petitioner and considering the medical records, the
percentage of permanent disability to the whole body of Petitioner is
taken as 20%. This Court has already considered the notional income
of Petitioner as Rupees 9,000/- per month. As on the date of
accident, the age of Petitioner was 42 years at the time of accident.
For the age of 42 years, the multiplier is "14" as per the decision
reported in: 2009 ACJ 1298 Sarala Varma Vs. Delhi Transport
Company. So, the loss of      permanent physical disability   would be
Rupees 9,000 x 12 x 14 x 20/100 = Rupees 3,02,400/-. For the
aforesaid reasons, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation of
Rupees 3,02,400/- under the head of loss of permanent disability.18.      P.W.3 in the cross-examination stated that in his evidence
affidavit it is wrongly mentioned that Petitioner needs total leg
replacement. It is to be noted that, as per Ex.P.8 Discharge Summary
and Ex.P.13 case sheet and evidence of Doctor, it is clear that the
implants are inserted to the right leg of Petitioner by conducting
surgery. As per the evidence of Doctor the implants are still in situ
and. Hence there is possibility of requirement of further treatment to
 SCCH 7                            17                  M.V.C.No.7606/2016
                                                  C/w M.V.C.No.7607/2016


the petitioner. Under the circumstances it is just and proper to award
Rupees 20,000/- under the head of Future Medical expenses, which
does not carry future interest.19. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rupees
4,43,230/- under different heads as below.1.       For pain and sufferings,          Rupees    70,000.00
         mental agony.2.       Actual medical expenses           Rupees      4,830.003.       For Special diet and              Rupees    10,000.00
         Conveyance.4.       For loss of earning during        Rupees    36,000.00
         treatment period5.       Loss of permanent                 Rupees 3,02,400.00
         disability6.       Future medical expenses           Rupees    20,000.00
                   Total                   Rupees 4,43,230.0020. Issue No.2 in M.V.C. No.7607/2016: P.W2 deposed that in the
accident his daughter sustained abrasion over the nose, right cheek
and cut lacerated wound over right chin measuring 2 cm., X 3 cm.
P.W.2 stated that his daughter was shifted to V.P. Magnas Hospital,
Nelamangala and thereafter she was shifted to Victoria Hospital,
where in she took treatment as inpatient. P.W.2 stated that he spent
Rupees 50,000/- towards medicine and other expenses. P.W.2 stated
that his daughter was hale and healthy and she was student of Pre-
nursery and due to the accidental injuries she is not able to
concentrate on studies as before the accident and hence she lost
her academic year. In support of his contention P.W.2 has produced
 SCCH 7                           18                   M.V.C.No.7606/2016
                                                  C/w M.V.C.No.7607/2016


Ex.P.12 Wound Certificate, which reveals the petitioner has sustained
abrasion over the nose, right cheek and cut lacerated wound over
right chin measuring 2 cms X 3 cms. In the cross-examination by the
counsel for Respondent No.2 P.W.2 stated that the injuries of his
daughter are cured. P.W.2 stated that he has not produced
documents to show that he has spent Rupees 50,000/- towards
medical expenses of his daughter. In this case on going through the
oral evidence of P.W.2 and document produced by him it is clear that
the Petitioner sustained abrasion over the nose, right cheek and cut
lacerated wound over right chin measuring 2 cm., X 3 in a road traffic
accident. Though the Petitioner stated that his daughter has taken
treatment as inpatient at Victoria Hospital, he has not produced any
documents before the court. Under the circumstances by considering
the injuries sustained by the Petitioner, treatment taken by her and
hospitalization, I am of the opinion that, it is reasonable to award
global compensation of Rupees 10,000/-, to the petitioner.21. The Respondent No.2 admitted the issuance of Insurance Policy
to the Car bearing registration No.KA-52-M-3127. In this case
Respondent No.2 taken defence that there was head on collision
between two vehicle and drivers of both vehicles were not having
valid Driving Licence and petitioners were not wearing helmets while
proceeding in a two wheeler. In support of their case the Insurance
Company     got    examined     Sri.S.Rajanna,    Head       Constable,
Rajanukunte Police Station as RW.1. He deposed that he registered
FIR and filed Charge Sheet against the accused in Crime
No.336/2016. RW.1 stated that he recorded the statement of Afzal
 SCCH 7                              19                     M.V.C.No.7606/2016
                                                       C/w M.V.C.No.7607/2016


Sab at that time he has not produced his Driving Licence. In the
cross-examination by the counsel for Petitioner he admitted that he
field Charge Sheet against driver of Car for the offences punishable
underSection 279and338of IPC. RW.1 stated that after conducting
investigation he came to know that the accident occurred due to rash
and negligent act of driver of Car, hence he filed Charge Sheet
against the driver of Car. Further in order to prove the defence the
Respondent No.2 got examined RTO of Havery as RW.2. He
deposed that after inspection he filed Motor Vehicle Inspection report
as per Ex.P.5. Further the Petitioner got examined its Legal Assistant
as RW.3. He has produced Ex.R.1 Authorization Letter and Ex.R.2
Copy of Insurance Policy. In the cross-examination RW.3 stated that
he has not produced statements of eye witnesses recorded by the
Investigating Officer in Crime No.336/2016. RW.3 admitted that in the
Police record there is no recital that the rider as well as pillion rider of
Motor Cycle were not wearing helmets. RW.3 denied the suggestion
that no Charge Sheet has been filed against the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.7606/2016 stating that he and the pillion rider were not
wearing the helmets at the time of accident. Further RW.3 admitted
that in the Charge Sheet there is no recital that the rider of two
wheeler was not having Driving Licence at the time of accident. In the
case     on    hand     in   the    cross-examination       Petitioner     in
M.V.C.No.7606/2016 was the rider of the Motor Cycle bearing
registration No.KA-06-EG-1920 specifically denied the suggestion of
counsel for Respondent No.2 that he and pillion rider were not
wearing helmets at the time of accident. It is to be noted that the
Investigating Officer not filed Charge Sheet against the Petitioner in
 SCCH 7                                 20                  M.V.C.No.7606/2016
                                                       C/w M.V.C.No.7607/2016


M.V.C.No.7606/2016 alleging that he was not having Driving Licence
at the time of accident and rider and pillion rider were not wearing
helmets. It is to be noted that the Investigating Officer stated that he
has recorded the statement of Petitioner in M.V.C.No.7606/2016,
however he has not produced copy of statement alleged to have
been recorded by him. As already discussed there is no evidence on
record to prove that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent
act of Petitioner in M.V.C.No.7606/2016. Further the Respondent
No.2 has not produced acceptable evidence before the Court to
prove that the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.7606/2016 was riding the Motor
Cycle without Driving Licence and he and his daughter were traveling
without helmets. This court already came to conclusion that the
accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of driver of Car
bearing registration No.KA-52-M-3127. There is no dispute that as on
the date of accident the policy was in force. Under the circumstances,
Respondent No.1 being the owner and Respondent No.2 being the
insurer of offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation to the Petitioners in M.V.C.No.7606/2016 and
M.V.C.No.7607/206 with interest at the rate of 9% P.A. from the date
of    petition   till   realization.   Accordingly,   Issue   No.     2   in
M.V.C.No.7606/2016 and M.V.C.No.7607/2016 is answered partly
in the Affirmative.22.      Issue No.3 in M.V.C.No.7606/2016:             In view of above
discussions, I proceed to pass the following:SCCH 7                            21                    M.V.C.No.7606/2016
                                                    C/w M.V.C.No.7607/2016


                               ORDER
                  The petition filed by the Petitioner underSec.166 of I.M.V Act is hereby partly allowed with
           costs.The petitioner is entitled for compensation of
           Rupees 4,43,230/- along with future interest at the
           rate of 9% p.a. (excluding on future medical
           expenses of Rs.20,000/-) from the date of petition
           till realization of entire amount.The respondent No.2 being the insurer of
           offending vehicle is directed to deposit
           compensation amount within two months from the
           date of award.Out of the compensation amount 75% is
           ordered to be released infavour of petitioner by
           issuing Account Payee Cheque with proper
           identification and remaining 25% is order to be
           kept in Fixed Deposit in the name of petitioner in
           any Nationalized Bank for a period of 3 years.Original copy of the Judgment shall be kept in
           M.V.C.No.7606/2016 and the copy of the same
           shall be kept in M.V.C.No.7607/2016.The Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.Draw award accordingly.24.      Issue No.3 in M.V.C.No.7607/2016:          In view of above
discussions, I proceed to pass the following:SCCH 7                         22                   M.V.C.No.7606/2016
                                                C/w M.V.C.No.7607/2016




                            ORDER
               The petition filed by the Petitioner underSec.166 of I.M.V Act is hereby partly allowed with
         costs.The petitioner is entitled for global
         compensation of Rupees 10,000/- along with
         future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date
         of petition till realization of entire amount.The respondent No.2 being the insurer of
         offending vehicle is directed to deposit
         compensation amount within two months from the
         date of award.Since the petitioner is minor entire
         compensation amount is to kept in Fixed Deposit
         in the name of Petitioner in any Nationalized Bank
         till the petitioner attains the age of majority.Original copy of the Judgment shall be kept in
         M.V.C.No.7606/2016 and the copy of the same
         shall be kept in M.V.C.No.7607/2016.The Advocate's fee is fixed at Rupees
         1,000/-.Draw award accordingly.(Dictated to the steno, computerized by him, corrected by
me and then pronounced in the open Court on
24.04.2018).(SUJATHA. S)
            IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM,
                        Court of Small causes,
                      Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.SCCH 7                            23                 M.V.C.No.7606/2016
                                                 C/w M.V.C.No.7607/2016




                       ANNEXUREI. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE
   PETITIONERS;P.W.1     :       Afzal Saba @ Abjal Saba @ Abbjal
                           Khan
         P.W.2     :       Afzal Saba @ Abjal Saba @ Abbjal
                           Khan
         P.W.3     :       Dr. Ramesh.B.II. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE
    PETITIONERS:Ex.P.1        :    FIR
         Ex.P.2        :    Complaint
         Ex.P.3        :    Wound Certificate
         Ex.P.4        :    Spot Mahazar
         Ex.P.5        :    IMV Report
         Ex.P.6        :    Charge Sheet
         Ex.P.7        :    OPD Book
         Ex.P.8        :    Discharge Summary
         Ex.P.9        :    Hospital and Medical Bills (10 in
                            nos.)
         Ex.P.10       :    Prescriptions (16 in nos.)
         Ex.P.11       :    Notarized Xerox copy of Ration
                            Card
         Ex.P.12       :    Wound Certificate
         Ex.P.13       :    Inpatient Record
         Ex.P.14       :    OPD Slip
         Ex.P.15       :    X-ray Film
 SCCH 7                              24                      M.V.C.No.7606/2016
                                                        C/w M.V.C.No.7607/2016




III.     LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE
         RESPONDENTS:

           RW.1      :       S.Rajanna
           RW.2      :       S.Raju
           RW.3      :       Rajashekar
IV.      LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
         RESPONDENTS:

           Ex.R.1        :   Authorization Letter
           Ex.R.2        :   Copy of Insurance Policy


                                  (SUJATHA. S)
                  IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM,
                              Court of Small causes,
                            Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.