Bangalore District Court
No.1 Had Filed The Petition In ... vs No.3 Or Driver Of The Vehicle on 24 April, 2015
THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL. SMALL CAUSES AND ADDL.
MACT., BANGALORE, (SCCH-7)
Dated this, the 24th day of April, 2015.
PRESENT : SMT.INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR,
B.Com.,LL.B.(Spl.),LL.M.,
IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM,
Court of Small Causes,
Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
M.V.C.No.1714/2007
C/w. M.V.C.No.1715/2007 and M.V.C.No.1715/2007
1. Shashikala, ..... PETITIONERS IN
D/o Late Venkataramanappa, M.V.C.No.1714/2007
Aged about 23 years,
C/o C.V.Ranganatha Reddy,
No.96, 2nd 'A' Cross Road,
K.R.Layout, J.P.Nagar, 6th Phase,
Bangalore-60 078.
2. G.V.Shivaprakash,
Aged about 34 years,
S/o Late Venkataramanappa.C.
3. G.V.Raghavendra,
Aged about 33 years,
S/o Late Venkataramanappa.C.
Both Petitioners No.2 and 3 are residing
at "Gokula Nilaya",
Krishna Nagar,
Basavanapura Main Road,
K.R.Puram,
Bangalore.
(P-1 By Sri. Venkataramu, Adv.,)
(P-2 & P-3 By Sri. D.Ngaraja Reddy,
Adv.,
SCCH-7 2 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007.
V/s
1.The Regional Manager, ..... RESPONDENTS IN
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., M.V.C.No.1714/2007
No.44/45, Leo Complex,
Residency Road Cross,
Bangalore-560025.
(Policy No.421101/2006/618)
(Insurer of the vehicle bearing number
KA-06-TA-471)
2. C.T.Ramesh,
S/o Chikkathimmaiah,
Girigowdana Palya Kasaba,
HO Tarikere, Kunigal Taluk,
Tumkur.
(Owner of the vehicle bearing number
KA-06-TA-470-471)
3. The National Insurance Company
Limited,
Regional Office,
Subhram Complex, M.G.Road,
Bangalore-560 001.
Represented by its Regional Manager.
(R-1 By Sri. Manoj Kumar, Adv.,)
(R-2 By Sri. M. Muralidhara, Adv.,)
(R-3 By Sri. K.S. Rajan, Adv.,)
2. Shashikala, PETITIONER IN
D/o Late Venkataramanappa, M.V.C.No.1715/2007
Aged 23 years,
C/o C.V.Ranganatha Reddy,
No.96, 2nd 'A' Cross Road, K.R. Layout,
J.P.Nagar, 6th Phase,
Bangalore-560 078.
SCCH-7 3 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007.
(By Sri. VenkataramuAdv.,)
V/S
1.The Regional Manager,
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., .....RESPONDENTS IN
No.44/45, Leo Complex, M.V.C.No.1715/2007
Residency Road Cross,
Bangalore-560025.
(Policy No.421101/2006/618)
(Insurer of the vehicle bearing number
KA-06-TA-471)
2. C.T.Ramesh,
S/o Chikkathimmaiah,
Girigowdana Palya Kasaba,
HO Tarikere, Kunigal Taluk,
Tumkur.
(Owner of the vehicle bearing number
KA-06-TA-470-471)
3. The National Insurance Company
Limited,
Regional Office,
Subhram Complex, M.G. Road,
Bangalore-560 001.
(R-1 By Sri. Manoj Kumar, Adv.,)
(R-2 By Sri. M. Muralidhara, Adv.,)
(R-3 By Sri. K.S. Rajan, Adv.,)
Shashikala,
D/o Late Venkataramanappa, .....PETITIONER IN
C/o C.V.Ranganatha Reddy, M.V.C.No.1716/2007
No.96, 2nd 'A' Cross Road,
K.R. Layout, J.P. Nagar, 6th Phase,
Bangalore-560 078.
(By Sri. Venkataramu, Adv.,)
SCCH-7 4 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007.
V/S
1.The Regional Manager,
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., ..... RESPONDENTS IN
No.44/45, Residency Road Cross, M.V.C.No.1716/2007
Leo Complex,
Bangalore-560025.
(Policy No.421101/2006/618)
(Insurer of the vehicle bearing number
KA-06-TA-471)
2. C.T.Ramesh,
S/o Chikkathimmaiah,
Girigowdana Palya Kasaba,
HO Tarikere, Kunigal Taluk,
Tumkur.
(Owner of the vehicle bearing number
KA-06-TA-470-471)
3. The National Insurance Company
Limited,
Regional Office,
Subhram Complex, M.G.Road,
Bangalore-560 001.
(R-1 By Sri. Manoj Kumar, Adv.,)
(R-2 By Sri. M. Muralidhara, Adv.,)
(R-3 By Sri. K.S. Rajan, Adv.,)
COMMON JUDGMENT
As per the Order dated 24.09.2008 passed on Memo in
M.V.C.No.1714/2007, M.V.C.No.1715/2007 and M.V.C.
No.1716/2007, are clubbed with the said M.V.C.No.1714/2007
and the common evidence is recorded in the said case. Hence,
M.V.C.No.1714/2007, M.V.C.No.1715/2007 and
SCCH-7 5 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007.
M.V.C.No.1716/2007, are pending for consideration and disposal
before this Tribunal by passing a common judgment.
2. It is pertinent to note here that, the present petitions
were dismissed on 06.01.2010 on merits by this Tribunal by
passing a considered Judgment and as per the Judgment dated
07.07.2014 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in
M.F.A. No.2570/2010 (MV) clubbed with M.F.A.No.2612/2010
(MV) clubbed with M.F.A.No.2569/2010 (MV), the Judgment and
Award dated 06.01.2010 passed by this Tribunal, are set-aside
and all the claim petitions are remitted back to this Tribunal with
a direction to reconsider the same afresh and in accordance with
law, after giving opportunity to all the parties to lead evidence
and also cross-examine on such evidence. Hence, these petitions
are pending before this Tribunal for consideration and disposal.
3. It is further pertinent to note here that, initially, the
Petitioner No.1 had filed the petition in M.V.C.No.1714/2007 as
against the Respondents No.1 and 2 and later, as per the Order
dated 03.04.2009, the Petitioners No.2 and 3 are impleaded as
parties to the said petition.
4. It is further pertinent to note here that, initially, the
Petitioners in all the petitions have filed the said petitions only as
against the Respondents No.1 and 2 and later, as per the Order
dated 08.01.2015 passed on I.A.No.VI, the Respondent No.3 is
impleaded as party to all the petitions.
5. The Petitioners in M.V.C.No.1714/2007 have filed the
said petition as against the Respondents No.1 to 3 under Section
SCCH-7 6 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007.
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 praying to award
compensation of Rupees 35,00,000/- with interest at the rate of
12% p.a. from the date of accident, in respect of death of
C.VENKATARAMANAPPA S/o CHELLAPPA.
6. The brief averments of the Petitioners' case in M.V.C.
No.1714/2007 are as follows;
a) The Petitioner with her parents, was going to
Dharmastala from Bangalore in Maruthi Car bearing Registration
No.KA-05-MC-4619 on 24.06.2006. The driver of the said vehicle
was driving on left side of the road in slow speed and when the
said vehicle reached National Highway No.48 at around 4.00 p.m.,
near Nandeana Poultry, which is between Siddapura and
Nagegowdana Palya, which is between Siddarapura and
Nagegowdana Palya, a Tractor-Trailer bearing No.KA-06-TA-470-
471, while negotiating with a curve came in rash and negligent
way dashed against their Car. Due to the impact, her father and
mother died in the accident and she also sustained severe
grievous injuries and was immediately shifted to Hospital. The
driver of the said vehicle, i.e., Tractor-Trailer was driving in speed
without following traffic rules and regulations. The accident in
question took place due to the composite negligence of both
Tractor and Trailer and Maruthi Car. The Respondents No. 2 and
3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
b) She is the only daughter of the deceased and after the
accident, she inpatient for several months and was later advised
bed rest. Since, she was hospitalized immediately after the
accident, she could not give complaint to Police, at this point of
SCCH-7 7 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007.
time, the owner along with his driver of the Tractor-Trailer in
question colluding with the Police Officials filed false complaint
before the jurisdictional Police and the said Police have never
come to Hospital, where she was hospitalized for recording of
statement. She has never given any statement to Police. The said
owner taking advantage of her hospitalization, has managed to file
false complaint before the Police. When, after the discharge and
bed rest, she came to know about the said false compliant and she
approached the jurisdictional Police and tried to give complaint,
whereas, the Police Officials, who had handed glove with the
owner of the Tractor-Trailer in question, did not receive complaint.
In such circumstance, she sent written complaint to concerned
Police on 09.10.2006. She has filed present complaint to
concerned Court vide PCR No.25/2007.
c) The Petitioners No.2 and 3 are the sons of the deceased
C.Venkataramanappa through his first wife Smt.Gowramma. The
Petitioner No.1 is the daughter of the deceased through his second
wife Nagarathnamma. Thereby, the Petitioner No.1 is the step
sister of Petitioners No.2 and 3. The Petitioners No.2 and 3 along
with Petitioner No.1 are the sole surviving legal heirs of the
deceased Venkataramanappa. Hence, the Petitioners No.1 to 3 are
entitled to the compensation amount claimed.
d) Her father was working as Assistant Manager in State
Bank of Mysore and he was earning Rupees 25,000/- per month.
He was contributing his entire income towards welfare of the
family. Her father was also due of promotion in the service. She
has spent Rupees 25,000/- towards medical expenses for her
father and Rupees 50,000/-towards funeral and obsequies.
SCCH-7 8 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007.
e) The Jurisdictional Police registered a case against the
driver of her vehicle and till today, no charge sheet has been filed.
Due to the composite negligence of both Tractor and Trailer and
Maruthi Car the accident took place. She is an eye-witness to the
accident in question and the said Tractor-Trailer was coming in
high speed and rash and negligent manner. The driver of the said
vehicle was sole architect of the said vehicle.
f) Respondent No.1 is the insurer of the said vehicle for
the relevant period and Respondent No.2 is the owner of the said
goods vehicle. Hence, both the Respondents are jointly and
severally liable to pay compensation of Rupees 35,00,000/-
together with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of accident.
g) They have not claimed any compensation under
Section 140 before any other Authority. Hence, this Petition.
7. In response to the notice, the Respondent No.1 has
appeared before this Tribunal through his Learned Counsel and
has filed the written statement.
8. In response to the notice, the Respondent No.2 has
appeared before this Tribunal through his Learned Counsel. But,
inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the Respondent No.2 had
not filed the written statement.
9. In response to the notice, the Respondent No.3 has
appeared before this Tribunal through its Learned Counsel and
has filed the written statement and additional written statement.
SCCH-7 9 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007.
10. The Respondent No.1 inter-alia denying the entire case
of the Petitioners in M.V.C.No.1714/2007, has further contended
as follows;
a) At the outset, the claim petition is misconstrued and
bad in law. Without prejudice, the claim petition suffers from mis-
joinder of parties, qua these Respondents.
b) The claim petition does not disclose any cause of
action as against him and hence, the same is liable to be rejected
as against him.
c) He prays and reserves his right to amend his
statement of objections, in view of the fact that, the Respondent
No.2/owner of Tractor-Trailer bearing Registration No.KA-06-TA-
470-471, has failed to extend co-operation to his Company in
contesting the matter. He has not furnished any particulars of the
alleged accident or about the insurance policy issued by him. It is
obvious that, the 2nd Respondent has colluded with the Petitioners
in conducting the matter. Hence, he prays leave of the Hon'ble
Court to file additional statement of objections as and when the
documents are submitted by the Respondent No.2.
d) The accident dated 24.08.2006, while the deceased,
the wife of the deceased and the Petitioner, were traveling in a
Maruti Car belonging to the deceased driven by driver one Sri
Shankar. C. S/o Chandrashekar and that, the accident occurred
on account of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, Maruti
Car, bearing No.KA-05-MC-4619 by its driver Sri Shankar S/o
Chandrashekar. Further, as per the FIR filed and the statement of
SCCH-7 10 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007.
the informant, who is also an eyewitness, wherein, the vehicle
Maruti Car driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner
coming from Kunigal, dashed against the Tractor coming from the
opposite direction, which was moving on the extreme left side of
the road and not as so stated in Para 22(1) of the claim petition.
The statement of eye witness is to the effect that, the accident
occurred solely due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of
the Maruti Car, bearing No.KA-05-MC-4619 belonging to the
father of the Petitioner/deceased and insured with Respondent
No.3.
e) The mahazar and sketch prepared by the Police prove a
clear picture and fact perspective. It is further narrated that, the
Car driven by the driver Sri.C.Shankar and the Tractor while
coming from Yediyur, were on the left side of the road, at which
time, the driver of the Maruti Car, bearing No.KA-05-MC-4619
coming from the opposite direction came to the extreme right side
and dashed against the Tractor-Trailer injuring the occupants of
the Car and subsequently, after moving 15 feet from the
occurrence of the first impact with the Tractor-Trailer bearing
No.KA-06-TA-470-475 driven by its driver, was on the right course
of motion and the accident occurred only due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of Maruti Car bearing No.KA-05-MC-
4619.
f) The Tractor-Trailer insured with it and belonging to the
2nd Respondent was proceeding on the correct side of the road and
on sighting the Maruti Car coming from opposite direction in an
erratic manner, the driver of the Tractor-Trailer, tried his best to
avoid the collision with the Maruti Car and inspite of such
SCCH-7 11 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007.
maneuvering, the oncoming Maruti Car bearing No.KA-05-MC-
4619, in sufficient high speed, but, erratically, came to the wrong
side of the Tractor-Trailer and rammed on to it, causing extensive
damage to the Tractor-Trailer, injuring the occupants of the Car,
the Petitioner and her parents, who were proceeding towards
Dharmastala from Bangalore. The accident occurred solely due to
the rash and negligent driving of the Maruti Car bearing No.KA-
05-MC-4619. Even the Police case has been filed against the
driver of the Maruti Car, bearing No.KA-05-MC-4619, thus
confirming or betraying his total guilt of culpable negligence.
g) He is not liable to pay any compensation to the
Petitioners, as, the accident has occurred solely due to the rash
and negligent driving of the driver of the Maruti Car bearing
No.KA-05-MC-4619, belonging and owned by the father of the
Petitioner, the husband of the deceased and that compensation if
any, to be awarded to the Petitioner is to be paid by the
Respondent No.3 or driver of the vehicle, which caused the
accident, as per Section 168 of the M.V. Act, 1988.
h) He has infact issued the policy of insurance in respect
of vehicle, namely, Tractor-Trailer bearing No.KA-06-TA-470-471,
covered by Kissan Package Policy bearing No.42110/618/2006,
valid for the period from 22.07.2005 to 21.07.2006.
i) The Tractor-Trailer was being driven slowly, Carefully
and cautiously on the correct side of the road, by observing traffic
rules and regulations by sounding horn. The unfortunate accident
occurred only on account of the Carelessness on the part of the
driver of the Maruti Car bearing No.KA-05-MC-4619 , in which,
SCCH-7 12 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007.
the deceased and the Petitioner along with her deceased mother
were traveling as occupant, who infact was driving the said Car in
a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Tractor-
Trailer. The entire accident is traceable to the negligence of the
driver of Maruti Car bearing No.KA-05-MC-4619. This is evident
from the Police records, particularly, the mahazar and sketch,
which clearly indicates that, the accident has occurred almost
while the driver of the Maruti Car, since traveling on the left side
of the road from Kunigal towards Yediyuur, who took the Car to
the extreme right side an dashed against the Tractor-Trailer
coming from the opposite direction and after having impact with
the Tractor, had moved ahead 15 feet and had toppled upside
down.
j) The Respondent No.2 had violated an important
condition in the insurance policy and has acted in contravention
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by allowing the same to be used
for a commercial purpose. The insured vehicle, namely,
Agriculture Tractor-Trailer bearing Registration No.KA-06-T-1897
and KA-06-T-1998, was insured with it solely and only for the
purpose of agriculture purpose under Kissan Package Policy. The
fact and the insured vehicle along with the attached Trailer was
ply on National Highway 48, clearly goes to prove that, the vehicle
Tractor was used in contravention of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
by allowing the same to used for commercial purpose, other than
the purpose of agriculture and since being insured for the said
purpose of agriculture operations only. Therefore, there is express
breach and violation of the terms and conditions of the policy.
Therefore, he is not liable to indemnify the 2nd Respondent and
claim petition as against it is liable to be dismissed.
SCCH-7 13 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007.
k) The amount of compensation claimed is highly
exaggerated, illegal, fanciful and the Petitioner is trying to make a
windfall out of an unfortunate accident in as much as has claimed
highly disproportionate amount having no regard to truth and the
Petitioner is entitled to the pecuniary loss sustained by her to be
adjusted against any pecuniary advantage to be adjudged by this
Hon'ble Court, it is obvious that, the Petitioner is trying to convert
an unfortunate incident into a windfall and it is not liable to pay
Rupees 35,00,000/- or any part thereof. Hence, prayed to dismiss
the claim petition.
11. The Respondent No.3 inter-alia denying the entire case
of the Petitioners in M.V.C.No.1714/2007, has further contended
in its written statement as follows;
a) The claim petition is not maintainable in law and facts.
b) The vehicle bearing No.KA-05-MC-4619 was insured
with it and the insurance was in force at the time of alleged
accident.
c) The Petitioner are not entitled for the compensation of
Rupees 35,00,000/- towards general and special damages.
d) The amount claimed by the Petitioners as
compensation is highly exorbitant, excessive, arbitrary,
unreasonable and without any legal basis.
e) There is not cause of action and the alleged cause of
action is false.
SCCH-7 14 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007.
f) If at all the alleged accident has taken place, it is only
due to the negligence on the part of the driver of Tractor who was
moving on the road negligently and dashed himself to the vehicle
belonging to the Petitioner's father.
g) The Tractor driver has mainly contributed to the
alleged accident and on this score alone, it is not liable to pay any
compensation to the Petitioners.
h) The person, who was driving the Car, has no valid
driving licence as on the date of accident. On this score alone, it is
not iable to pay any compensation to the Petitioners.
i) The jurisdictional Police have not intimated regarding
the alleged accident to the jurisdictional Tribunal nor the owner
has intimated it, regarding the same as required under Section
158 (6) of the M.V. Act.
j) The Petitioners being the legal heirs of the deceased
C.Venkataramanappa, who is the owner of the Car bearing
Registration No.KA-05-MC-4619 and also the insured become the
owners of the Car and become automatically the insured. The
Petitioners cannot be both claimant and also the recipient.
Further, it is settled principle that, the owner cannot file a petition
against the Insurance Company for the death/injuries sustained
in an accident caused by their own driver. Further, when the
driver of the Car has been charge sheeted for rash and negligent
driving by the jurisdictional Police, the Petitioners cannot claim
any compensation from it, as their own driver has been charge
sheeted. The insured/deceased is not a third party for claiming
SCCH-7 15 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007.
any compensation from it. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim
petition with costs.
12. The Respondent No.3 inter-alia denying the entire case
of the Petitioners in M.V.C.No.1714/2007, has further contended
in its additional written statement as follows;
a) The claim petition is not maintainable in law and facts.
b) It admits that, the vehicle bearing No.KA-05-MC-4619
was insured with it and the insurance was in force as per the
strict terms and conditions of the policy at the time of the alleged
accident.
c) The insurance policy issued in favour of insured does
not cover the risk of occupants of the Car as no additional
premium is paid to cover the risks of such persons. The risk of the
Petitioner claimed to be the occupant of the Auto Rickshaw at the
time of accident, is not covered under the policy issued in favour
of insured.
d) The Petitioner herself being the legal heir of the
insured cannot claim compensation as she is not a third party
from it. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition with costs.
13. The Petitioner in M.V.C.No.1715/2007 has filed the
said petition as against the Respondents No.1 to 3 under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 praying to award
compensation of Rupees 10,00,000/- with interest at the rate of
12% p.a. from the date of accident, in respect of death of Smt.
NAGAVENI W/o Sri. VENKATARAMANAPPA.
SCCH-7 16 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007.
14. The brief averments of the Petitioner's case in M.V.C.
No.1715/2007 are as follows;
a) She with her parents was going to Dharmastala from
Bangalore in Maruthi Car bearing Registration No.KA-05-MC-4619
on 24.06.2006. The driver of the said vehicle was driving on left
side of the road in slow speed and when the said vehicle reached
National Highway No.48 at around 4.00 p.m., near Nandana
Poultry, which is between Siddapura and Nagegowdana Palya, a
Tractor-Trailer bearing No.KA-06-TA-470-471 while negotiating
with a curve, came in rash and negligent way dashed against her
Car. Due to the impact, her father and mother died in the accident
and she also sustained severe grievous injuries and was
immediately shifted to Hospital.
b) The driver of the said vehicle, i.e., Tractor-Trailer was
driving in speed without following traffic rules and regulations.
The accident in question took place due to the composite
negligence of both Tractor and Trailer and Maruthi Car. The
Respondents No. 2 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the
compensation.
c) The accident took place when the vehicle was in use
and the deceased was an occupant of the vehicle. The Hon'ble
apex Court has held in several cases that, when the vehicle is in
use and the accident has taken place because of no fault of the
person, in such a cases, compensation under the Motor Vehicles
Act cannot be denied and the intention of the legislature is the
same while passing the M.V. Act.
SCCH-7 17 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007.
d) She is the only daughter of the deceased's and after the
accident, she was inpatient for several months and was later,
advised bed rest. Since, she was hospitalized immediately after the
accident, she could not give complaint to Police, at this point of
time, the owner along with his driver of the Tractor-Trailer in
question colluding with the Police Officials filed false complaint
before the jurisdictional Police and the said Police have never
come to Hospital, where she was hospitalized and for recording of
statement. She has never given any statement to Police. The said
owner taking advantage of her hospitalization, has managed to file
false complaint before the Police. When, after the discharge and
bed rest, she came to know about the said false compliant and she
approached the jurisdictional Police and tried to give complaint,
whereas, the Police officials, who had handed glove with the owner
of the Tractor-Trailer in question, did not receive complaint. In
such circumstance, she sent written complaint to concerned
Police on 09.10.2006. She has filed present complaint to
concerned Court vide PCR No.25/2007. Hence, allow the claim
petition by awarding the compensation to be payable by the owner
and insurer of the Tractor-Trailer in question.
e) Her mother was doing tailoring work, operating from
house only and she was earning Rupees 4,500/- per month. She
was contributing her entire income towards the welfare of the
family.
f) She has spent Rupees 25,000/- towards medical
expenses for her father and Rupees 50,000/-towards funeral and
obsequies.
SCCH-7 18 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007.
g) The Jurisdictional Police registered a case against the
driver of her vehicle and till today, no charge sheet has been filed.
Due to the composite negligence of both Tractor and Trailer and
Maruthi Car, the accident took place. She is an eye witness to the
accident in question and the said Tractor-Trailer was coming in
high speed and rash and negligent manner. The driver of the said
vehicle was sole architect of the said vehicle.
h) The Respondent No.1 is the insurer of the said vehicle
for the relevant period and the Respondent No.2 is the owner of
the said goods vehicle and the Respondent No.3. Hence, both the
Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation
of Rupees 10,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12%
from the date of accident.
i) She has not claimed any compensation under Section
140 before any other Authority. Hence, this Petition.
15. In response to the notice, the Respondent No.1 has
appeared before this Tribunal through his Learned Counsel and
has filed the written statement.
16. In response to the notice, the Respondent No.2 has
appeared before this Tribunal through his Learned Counsel. But,
inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the Respondent No.2 had
not filed the written statement.
17. In response to the notice, the Respondent No.3 has
appeared before this Tribunal through its Learned Counsel and
has filed the written statement and additional written statement.
SCCH-7 19 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007.
18. The Respondent No.1 inter-alia denying the entire case
of the Petitioners in M.V.C.No.1715/2007, has further contended
as follows;
a) At the outset, the claim petition is misconstrued and
bad in law. Without prejudice, the claim petition suffers from mis-
joinder of parties, qua these Respondents.
b) The claim petition does not disclose any cause of
action as against him and hence, the same is liable to be rejected
as against him.
c) He prays and reserves his right to amend his
statement of objections, in view of the fact that, the Respondent
No.2/owner of Tractor-Trailer bearing Registration No.KA-06-TA-
470-471, has failed to extend co-operation to his Company in
contesting the matter. He has not furnished any particulars of the
alleged accident or about the insurance policy issued by him. It is
obvious that, the 2nd Respondent has colluded with the Petitioners
in conducting the matter. Hence, he prays leave of the Hon'ble
Court to file additional statement of objections as and when the
documents are submitted by the Respondent No.2.
d) The accident dated 24.08.2006, while the deceased,
the wife of the deceased and the Petitioner, were traveling in a
Maruti Car belonging to the deceased driven by driver one Sri
Shankar. C. S/o Chandrashekar and that, the accident occurred
on account of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, Maruti
Car, bearing No.KA-05-MC-4619 by its driver Sri Shankar S/o
Chandrashekar. Further, as per the FIR filed and the statement of
SCCH-7 20 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007.
the informant, who is also an eyewitness, wherein, the vehicle
Maruti Car driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner
coming from Kunigal, dashed against the Tractor coming from the
opposite direction, which was moving on the extreme left side of
the road and not as so stated in Para 22(1) of the claim petition.
The statement of eye witness is to the effect that, the accident
occurred solely due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of
the Maruti Car, bearing No.KA-05-MC-4619 belonging to the
father of the Petitioner/deceased and insured with Respondent
No.3.
e) The mahazar and sketch prepared by the Police prove a
clear picture and fact perspective. It is further narrated that, the
Car driven by the driver Sri.C.Shankar and the Tractor while
coming from Yediyur, were on the left side of the road, at which
time, the driver of the Maruti Car, bearing No.KA-05-MC-4619
coming from the opposite direction came to the extreme right side
and dashed against the Tractor-Trailer injuring the occupants of
the Car and subsequently, after moving 15 feet from the
occurrence of the first impact with the Tractor-Trailer bearing
No.KA-06-TA-470-475 driven by its driver, was on the right course
of motion and the accident occurred only due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of Maruti Car bearing No.KA-05-MC-
4619.
f) The Tractor-Trailer insured with it and belonging to the
2nd Respondent was proceeding on the correct side of the road and
on sighting the Maruti Car coming from opposite direction in an
erratic manner, the driver of the Tractor-Trailer, tried his best to
avoid the collision with the Maruti Car and inspite of such
maneuvering, the oncoming Maruti Car bearing No.KA-05-MC-
SCCH-7 21 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007.
4619, in sufficient high speed, but, erratically, came to the wrong
side of the Tractor-Trailer and rammed on to it, causing extensive
damage to the Tractor-Trailer, injuring the occupants of the Car,
the Petitioner and her parents, who were proceeding towards
Dharmastala from Bangalore. The accident occurred solely due to
the rash and negligent driving of the Maruti Car bearing No.KA-
05-MC-4619. Even the Police case has been filed against the
driver of the Maruti Car, bearing No.KA-05-MC-4619, thus
confirming or betraying his total guilt of culpable negligence.
g) He is not liable to pay any compensation to the
Petitioner, as, the accident has occurred solely due to the rash
and negligent driving of the driver of the Maruti Car bearing
No.KA-05-MC-4619, belonging and owned by the father of the
Petitioner, the husband of the deceased and that compensation if
any, to be awarded to the Petitioner is to be paid by the
Respondent No.3 or driver of the vehicle, which caused the
accident, as per Section 168 of the M.V. Act, 1988.
h) He has infact issued the policy of insurance in respect
of vehicle, namely, Tractor-Trailer bearing No.KA-06-TA-470-471,
covered by Kissan Package Policy bearing No.42110/618/2006,
valid for the period from 22.07.2005 to 21.07.2006.
i) The Tractor-Trailer was being driven slowly, carefully
and cautiously on the correct side of the road, by observing traffic
rules and regulations by sounding horn. The unfortunate accident
occurred only on account of the Carelessness on the part of the
driver of the Maruti Car bearing No.KA-05-MC-4619 , in which,
the deceased and the Petitioner along with her deceased mother
were traveling as occupant, who infact was driving the said Car in
SCCH-7 22 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007.
a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Tractor-
Trailer. The entire accident is traceable to the negligence of the
driver of Maruti Car bearing No.KA-05-MC-4619. This is evident
from the Police records, particularly, the mahazar and sketch,
which clearly indicates that, the accident has occurred almost
while the driver of the Maruti Car, since traveling on the left side
of the road from Kunigal towards Yediyuur, who took the Car to
the extreme right side an dashed against the Tractor-Trailer
coming from the opposite direction and after having impact with
the Tractor, had moved ahead 15 feet and had toppled upside
down.
j) The Respondent No.2 had violated an important
condition in the insurance policy and has acted in contravention
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by allowing the same to be used
for a commercial purpose. The insured vehicle, namely,
Agriculture Tractor-Trailer bearing Registration No.KA-06-T-1897
and KA-06-T-1998, was insured with it solely and only for the
purpose of agriculture purpose under Kissan Package Policy. The
fact and the insured vehicle along with the attached Trailer was
ply on National Highway 48, clearly goes to prove that, the vehicle
Tractor was used in contravention of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
by allowing the same to used for commercial purpose, other than
the purpose of agriculture and since being insured for the said
purpose of agriculture operations only. Therefore, there is express
breach and violation of the terms and conditions of the policy.
Therefore, he is not liable to indemnify the 2nd Respondent and
claim petition as against it is liable to be dismissed.
SCCH-7 23 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007.
k) The amount of compensation claimed is highly
exaggerated, illegal, fanciful and the Petitioner is trying to make a
windfall out of an unfortunate accident in as much as has claimed
highly disproportionate amount having no regard to truth and the
Petitioner is entitled to the pecuniary loss sustained by her to be
adjusted against any pecuniary advantage to be adjudged by this
Hon'ble Court, it is obvious that, the Petitioner is trying to convert
an unfortunate incident into a windfall and it is not liable to pay
Rupees 20,00,000/- or any part thereof. Hence, prayed to dismiss
the claim petition.
19. The Respondent No.3 inter-alia denying the entire case
of the Petitioners in M.V.C.No.1714/2007, has further contended
in its written statement as follows;
a) The claim petition is not maintainable in law and facts.
b) The Petitioner is not entitled for the compensation of
Rupees 10,00,000/- towards general and special damages.
c) The amount claimed by the Petitioner as compensation
is highly exorbitant, excessive, arbitrary, unreasonable and
without any legal basis.
d) There is no cause of action and the alleged cause of
action is false.
e) If at all, the alleged accident has taken place, it is only
due to the negligence on the part of the driver of Tractor who was
moving on the road negligently and dashed himself to the vehicle
belonging to the Petitioner's father.
SCCH-7 24 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007.
f) The Tractor driver has mainly contributed to the
alleged accident and on this score alone, it is not liable to pay any
compensation to the Petitioner.
g) The person, who was driving the Car, has no valid
driving licence as on the date of accident. On this score alone, it is
not liable to pay any compensation to the Petitioner.
h) The jurisdictional Police have not intimated regarding
the alleged accident to the jurisdictional Tribunal nor the owner
has intimated it, regarding the same as required under Section
158(6) of the M.V. Act. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition
with costs.
20. The Respondent No.3 inter-alia denying the entire case
of the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.1715/2007, has further contended in
its additional written statement as follows;
a) The claim petition is not maintainable in law and facts.
b) It admits that, the vehicle bearing No.KA-05-MC-4619
was insured with it and the insurance was in force as per the
strict terms and conditions of the policy at the time of the alleged
accident.
c) The insurance policy issued in favour of insured does
not cover the risk of occupants of the Car as no additional
premium is paid to cover the risks of such persons. The risk of the
Petitioner claimed to be the occupant of the Auto Rickshaw at the
time of accident, is not covered under the policy issued in favour
of insured.
SCCH-7 25 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007.
d) The Petitioner herself being the legal heir of the
insured cannot claim compensation as she is not a third party
from it. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition with costs.
21. The Petitioner in M.V.C.No.1716/2007 has filed the
said petition as against the Respondents No.1 to 3 under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 praying to award
compensation of Rupees 20,00,000/- with interest at the rate of
12% p.a. from the date of accident.
22. The brief averments of the Petitioner's case in M.V.C.
No.1716/2007 are as follows;
a) She with her parents, was going to Dharmastala from
Bangalore in Maruthi Car bearing Registration No.KA-05-MC-4619
on 24.06.2006. The driver of the said vehicle was driving on left
side of the road in slow speed and when the said vehicle reached
National Highway No.48 at around 4.00 p.m., near Nandana
Poultry, which is between Siddapura and Nagegowdana Palya, a
Tractor-Trailer bearing No.KA-06-TA-470-471 and Maruthi Car,
due to composite negligence of both Tractor and Trailer and
Maruthi Car, while negotiating with a curve came in rash and
negligent way dashed against her Car. Due to the impact, her
father and mother died in the accident and she also sustained
severe grievous injuries and was immediately shifted to Hospital.
The driver of the said vehicle i.e., Tractor-Trailer was driving in
speed without following traffic rules and regulations. Due to the
composite negligence of Tractor and Trailer and Maruti Car.
SCCH-7 26 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007.
b) The 1st Respondent and 2nd Respondent are the owner
and insurer of the vehicle in question are liable to pay the
compensation.
c) The accident took place, when the vehicle in question
was in use and the deceased was an occupant of the vehicle. The
Hon'ble Apex Court has held in several cases that, when the
vehicle is in use and the accident has taken place because of no
fault of the person, in such a cases compensation under the Motor
Vehicle Act cannot be denied and the intention of the legislature is
the same while passing the M.V. Act.
d) She is the only daughter of the deceased's and after the
accident, she inpatient for several months and was later advised
bed rest. Since, she was hospitalized immediately after the
accident, she could not give complaint to Police, at this point of
time, the owner along with his driver of the Tractor-Trailer in
question colluding with the Police officials filed false complaint
before the jurisdictional Police and the said Police have never
come to Hospital, where she was hospitalized and for recording of
statement. She has never given any statement to Police. The said
owner taking advantage of her hospitalization has managed to file
false complaint before Police. When, after the discharge and bed
rest, she came to know about the said false compliant, she
approached the jurisdictional Police and tried to give complaint,
whereas, the Police officials, who had handed glove with the owner
of the Tractor-Trailer in question did not receive complaint. In
such circumstance she sent written complaint to concerned Police
on 09.10.2006. She has filed present complaint to concerned
Court vide PCR No.25/2007.
SCCH-7 27 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007.
e) Prior to the accident, she was working as Trainee in
ISRO, Bangalore, earning Rupees 5,000/- per month. She has
taken treatment in Bangalore Hospital, Rajashekar Hospital,
Chirag Hospital and now, she is still under treatment. She is
spending lakhs of rupees for the treatment and has taken hand
loans for the medical expense. The injuries caused to her have
resulted in permanent disablement and is an irreversible one. Due
to the injuries, nobody will come forward to marry her. She cannot
continue her job and cannot do any sort of job. She with this
disability has to live alone and she cannot enjoy marriage life as
her sexual organs are injured. She cannot independently look
after herself and has to be taken care by someone throughout her
life. She has engaged services of one maid to look-after her and
she is paying Rupees 2,000/- per month.
f) The Jurisdictional Police registered a case against the
driver of her vehicle and till today, no charge sheet has been filed.
Due to the composite negligence of both Tractor and Trailer and
Maruthi Car, the accident took place. She is an eye witness to the
accident in question and the said Tractor-Trailer was coming in
high speed and rash and negligent manner. The driver of the said
vehicle was sole architect of the said vehicle.
g) The Respondent No.1 is the insurer of the said vehicle
for the relevant period and the Respondent No.2 is the owner of
the said goods vehicle. Hence, both the Respondents are jointly
and severally liable to pay compensation of Rupees 20,00,000/-
together with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of accident.
SCCH-7 28 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007.
h) She has not claimed any compensation under Section
140 before any other Authority. Hence, this Petition.
23. In response to the notice, the Respondent No.1 has
appeared before this Tribunal through his Learned Counsel and
has filed the written statement.
24. In response to the notice, the Respondent No.2 has
appeared before this Tribunal through his Learned Counsel. But,
inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the Respondent No.2 had
not filed the written statement.
25. In response to the notice, the Respondent No.3 has
appeared before this Tribunal through its Learned Counsel and
has filed the written statement and additional written statement.
26. The Respondent No.1 inter-alia denying the entire case
of the Petitioners in M.V.C.No.1716/2007, has further contended
as follows;
a) At the outset, the claim petition is misconstrued and
bad in law. Without prejudice, the claim petition suffers from mis-
joinder of parties, qua these Respondents.
b) The claim petition does not disclose any cause of
action as against him and hence, the same is liable to be rejected
as against him.
c) He prays and reserves his right to amend his
statement of objections, in view of the fact that, the Respondent
No.2/owner of Tractor-Trailer bearing Registration No.KA-06-TA-
SCCH-7 29 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007.
470-471, has failed to extend co-operation to his Company in
contesting the matter. He has not furnished any particulars of the
alleged accident or about the insurance policy issued by him. It is
obvious that, the 2nd Respondent has colluded with the Petitioners
in conducting the matter. Hence, he prays leave of the Hon'ble
Court to file additional statement of objections as and when the
documents are submitted by the Respondent No.2.
d) The accident dated 24.08.2006, while the deceased,
the wife of the deceased and the Petitioner, were traveling in a
Maruti Car belonging to the deceased driven by driver one Sri
Shankar. C. S/o Chandrashekar and that, the accident occurred
on account of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, Maruti
Car, bearing No.KA-05-MC-4619 by its driver Sri Shankar S/o
Chandrashekar. Further, as per the FIR filed and the statement of
the informant, who is also an eyewitness, wherein, the vehicle
Maruti Car driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner
coming from Kunigal, dashed against the Tractor coming from the
opposite direction, which was moving on the extreme left side of
the road and not as so stated in Para 22(1) of the claim petition.
The statement of eye witness is to the effect that, the accident
occurred solely due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of
the Maruti Car, bearing No.KA-05-MC-4619 belonging to the
father of the Petitioner/deceased and insured with Respondent
No.3.
e) The mahazar and sketch prepared by the Police prove a
clear picture and fact perspective. It is further narrated that, the
Car driven by the driver Sri.C.Shankar and the Tractor while
coming from Yediyur, were on the left side of the road, at which
SCCH-7 30 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007.
time, the driver of the Maruti Car, bearing No.KA-05-MC-4619
coming from the opposite direction came to the extreme right side
and dashed against the Tractor-Trailer injuring the occupants of
the Car and subsequently, after moving 15 feet from the
occurrence of the first impact with the Tractor-Trailer bearing
No.KA-06-TA-470-475 driven by its driver, was on the right course
of motion and the accident occurred only due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of Maruti Car bearing No.KA-05-MC-
4619.
f) The Tractor-Trailer insured with it and belonging to the
2nd Respondent was proceeding on the correct side of the road and
on sighting the Maruti Car coming from opposite direction in an
erratic manner, the driver of the Tractor-Trailer, tried his best to
avoid the collision with the Maruti Car and inspite of such
maneuvering, the oncoming Maruti Car bearing No.KA-05-MC-
4619, in sufficient high speed, but, erratically, came to the wrong
side of the Tractor-Trailer and rammed on to it, causing extensive
damage to the Tractor-Trailer, injuring the occupants of the Car,
the Petitioner and her parents, who were proceeding towards
Dharmastala from Bangalore. The accident occurred solely due to
the rash and negligent driving of the Maruti Car bearing No.KA-
05-MC-4619. Even the Police case has been filed against the
driver of the Maruti Car, bearing No.KA-05-MC-4619, thus
confirming or betraying his total guilt of culpable negligence.
g) He is not liable to pay any compensation to the
Petitioner, as, the accident has occurred solely due to the rash
and negligent driving of the driver of the Maruti Car bearing
No.KA-05-MC-4619, belonging and owned by the father of the
SCCH-7 31 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007.
Petitioner, the husband of the deceased and that compensation if
any, to be awarded to the Petitioner is to be paid by the
Respondent No.3 or driver of the vehicle, which caused the
accident, as per Section 168 of the M.V. Act, 1988.
h) He has infact issued the policy of insurance in respect
of vehicle, namely, Tractor-Trailer bearing No.KA-06-TA-470-471,
covered by Kissan Package Policy bearing No.42110/618/2006,
valid for the period from 22.07.2005 to 21.07.2006.
i) The Tractor-Trailer was being driven slowly, carefully
and cautiously on the correct side of the road, by observing traffic
rules and regulations by sounding horn. The unfortunate accident
occurred only on account of the Carelessness on the part of the
driver of the Maruti Car bearing No.KA-05-MC-4619 , in which,
the deceased and the Petitioner along with her deceased mother
were traveling as occupant, who infact was driving the said Car in
a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Tractor-
Trailer. The entire accident is traceable to the negligence of the
driver of Maruti Car bearing No.KA-05-MC-4619. This is evident
from the Police records, particularly, the mahazar and sketch,
which clearly indicates that, the accident has occurred almost
while the driver of the Maruti Car, since traveling on the left side
of the road from Kunigal towards Yediyuur, who took the Car to
the extreme right side an dashed against the Tractor-Trailer
coming from the opposite direction and after having impact with
the Tractor, had moved ahead 15 feet and had toppled upside
down.
SCCH-7 32 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007.
j) The insured/Respondent No.2 had violated an
important condition in the insurance policy and has acted in
contravention of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by allowing the
same to be used for a commercial purpose. The insured vehicle,
namely, Agriculture Tractor-Trailer bearing Registration No.KA-06-
T-1897 and KA-06-T-1998, was insured with it solely and only for
the purpose of agriculture purpose under Kissan Package Policy.
The fact and the insured vehicle along with the attached Trailer
was ply on National Highway 48, clearly goes to prove that, the
vehicle Tractor was used in contravention of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988, by allowing the same to used for commercial purpose,
other than the purpose of agriculture and since being insured for
the said purpose of agriculture operations only. Therefore, there is
express breach and violation of the terms and conditions of the
policy. Therefore, he is not liable to indemnify the 2nd Respondent
and claim petition as against it is liable to be dismissed.
k) The amount of compensation claimed is highly
exaggerated, illegal, fanciful and the Petitioner is trying to make a
windfall out of an unfortunate accident in as much as has claimed
highly disproportionate amount having no regard to truth and the
Petitioner is entitled to the pecuniary loss sustained by her to be
adjusted against any pecuniary advantage to be adjudged by this
Hon'ble Court, it is obvious that, the Petitioner is trying to convert
an unfortunate incident into a windfall and it is not liable to pay
Rupees 20,00,000/- or any part thereof. Hence, prayed to dismiss
the claim petition.
SCCH-7 33 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007.
27. The Respondent No.3 inter-alia denying the entire case
of the Petitioners in M.V.C.No.1716/2007, has further contended
in its written statement as follows;
a) The claim petition is not maintainable in law and facts.
b) The Petitioner is not entitled for the compensation of
Rupees 35,00,000/- towards general and special damages.
c) The amount claimed by the Petitioner as compensation
is highly exorbitant, excessive, arbitrary, unreasonable and
without any legal basis.
d) There is no cause of action and the alleged cause of
action is false.
e) If at all, the alleged accident has taken place, it is only
due to the negligence on the part of the driver of Tractor, who was
moving on the road negligently and dashed himself to the vehicle
belonging to the Petitioner's father.
f) The Tractor driver has mainly contributed to the
alleged accident and on this score alone, it is not liable to pay any
compensation to the Petitioner.
g) The person, who was driving the Car, has no valid
driving licence as on the date of accident. On this score alone, it is
not liable to pay any compensation to the Petitioner.
h) The jurisdictional Police have not intimated regarding
the alleged accident to the jurisdictional Tribunal nor the owner
SCCH-7 34 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007.
has intimated it, regarding the same as required under Section
158(6) of the M.V. Act. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition
with costs.
28. The Respondent No.3 inter-alia denying the entire case
of the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.1715/2007, has further contended in
its additional written statement as follows;
a) The claim petition is not maintainable in law and facts.
b) It admits that, the vehicle bearing No.KA-05-MC-4619
was insured with it and the insurance was in force as per the
strict terms and conditions of the policy at the time of the alleged
accident.
c) The insurance policy issued in favour of insured does
not cover the risk of occupants of the Car as no additional
premium is paid to cover the risks of such persons. The risk of the
Petitioner claimed to be the occupant of the Auto Rickshaw at the
time of accident, is not covered under the policy issued in favour
of insured.
d) The Petitioner herself being the legal heir of the
insured cannot claim compensation as she is not a third party
from it. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition with costs.
29. Based on the above said pleadings, my Learned
Predecessor-in-Office has framed the following Issues;
SCCH-7 35 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007.
ISSUES
In M.V.C.No.1714/2007
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that, the
deceased C.Venkataramanappa, had met
with an RTA that occurred on
24.06.2006, at about 4.00 p.m., on
National Highway-48, near Nandana
Poultry Farm, within the jurisdiction of
Amruthur Police Station, Kunigal Taluk,
Tumkur District and succumbed to
injuries was due to rash and negligent
driving of Tractor-Trailer bearing Regn.
No.KA-06-TA-470-471 by its driver?
2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, what amount and
from whom?
3. What Order or Award?
ADDITIONAL ISSUE
Whether the Petitioners proves that, the
accident in question took place due to the
composite negligence of both Tractor-
Trailer and Maruthi Car?
In M.V.C.No.1715/2007
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that, the
deceased NAGAVENI, had met with an RTA
that occurred on 24.06.2006, at about 4.00
p.m., on National Highway-48, near
Nandana Poultry Farm, within the
jurisdiction of Amruthur Police Station,
Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District and
succumbed to injuries was due to rash and
negligent driving of Tractor-Trailer bearing
Regn. No.KA-06-TA-470-471 by its driver?
SCCH-7 36 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007.
2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, what amount and
from whom?
3. What Order or Award?
ADDITIONAL ISSUE
Whether the Petitioner proves that, the
accident in question took place due to the
composite negligence of both Tractor-
Trailer and Maruthi Car?
In M.V.C.No.1716/2007
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that, she
met with an RTA that occurred on
24.06.2006, at about 4.00 p.m., on
National Highway-48, near Nandana
Poultry Farm, within the jurisdiction of
Amruthur Police Station, Kunigal Taluk,
Tumkur District and sustained injuries
was due to rash and negligent driving of
Tractor-Trailer bearing Regn.No.KA-06-
TA-470-471 by its driver?
2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, what amount and
from whom?
3. What Order or Award?
ADDITIONAL ISSUE
Whether the Petitioner proves that, the
accident in question took place due to the
composite negligence of both Tractor-
Trailer and Maruthi Car?
30. In order to prove their case, the Petitioners in all the
cases have examined the Petitioner No.1 in M.V.C.No.1714/2007
SCCH-7 37 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007.
as P.W.1, the Petitioner No.3 as P.W.3 and have also examined
one witness as P.W.2 by filing the affidavits as their examination-
in-chief and have placed reliance upon Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.34. On the
other hand, the Respondent No.3 has examined one witness as
R.W.1 by filing an affidavit as his examination-in-chief and has
placed reliance upon Ex.R.1. On the other hand, the Respondent
No.1 has examined its Administrative Officer as R.W.2 by filing an
affidavit as his examination-in-chief and has placed reliance upon
Ex.R.2 to Ex.R.4. Ex.R.4 is marked with consent.
31. Heard the arguments.
32. In support of the submission, the Learned Counsel
appearing for the Petitioners have placed reliance upon the
decisions reported in,
i) 2004 ACJ 249 High Court of Karnataka
(Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation V/s Arun),
wherein, it is observed that,
Negligence - composite negligence - Joint
tortfeasors - Apportionment of inter se liability -
Passenger in Corporation bus sustained injuries
in collision between a bus and truck coming from
opposite directions - Truck driver drove away
and truck could not be identified - Injured filed
claim against Corporation and its driver -
Tribunal held that, both the drivers were equally
responsible for the accident and passed award
for half of the amount of compensation assessed
against the corporation - Whether in case of
composite negligence of drivers of two vehicles,
the claimant can recover the entire compensation
from any one of the joint tortfeasors - Held; yes;
compensation to which the injured is entitled
SCCH-7 38 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007.
cannot be reduced for non-impleading of the
other joint tortfeasors; joint tortfeasor who
satisfies the award can exercise his right of
contribution from the other joint tortfeasor.
(2000ACJ 1463 (Karnataka) confirmed)
It is well settled that, the liability of joint
tortfeasor is joint and several and each is
responsible, jointly with each and all of the
others and also severally for the whole of the
amount of damage caused by the tort,
irrespective of the extent of his participation. The
injured may sue any one of them separately for
the full amount of loss or he may sue all of them
jointly in the same action and even in the latter
case, the judgment so obtained against all of
them may be executed in full against any one of
them.
Motor vehicles Act, 1988, Section 169 -
Claims Tribunal - Procedure and powers -
Composite negligence - joint tortfeasers -
Apportionment of inter se liability - Passenger in
Corporation bus sustained injuries in collision
between a bus and truck - truck driver drove
away and driver, owner and Insurance Company
of truck are not known- passenger filed claim
against Corporation and its driver non-
impleading the other tortfeasor - Whether the
Tribunal should refrain from giving any finding
about apportionment of negligence in the
absence of other tortfeasor - Held: yes; it would
be an exercise in futility; the only joint tortfeasor
on record is bound to pay the compensation
awarded to the claimant; findings of the Tribunal
would not be binding on the joint tortfeasor who
is not a party to the proceedings; Tribunal
should not pass order, which cannot be
executed.
ii) (2008) 3 Supreme Court Cases 748 (T.O.Anthony
V/s Karvarnana and Others), wherein, it is observed that,
SCCH-7 39 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007.
A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Ss. 166 and
173 - Negligence - Contributory or composite -
Appellant, a driver working with Kerala SRTC
had a head on collision with a private bus driven
by first Respondent resulting in fracture of right
femur of appellant - Tribunal held that, as the
accident occurred due to contributory and
composite negligence of drivers of both the
vehicles, liability should be fifty - fifty (That, is
50% each) and from the total award it deducted
50% there from for the appellant's negligence -
High Court did not disturb the finding regarding
negligence but, increased the compensation-
Held, Tribunal, fell into a common error
committed by several Tribunals, that, composite
negligence and contributory negligence are one
and same - In an accident involving two or more
vehicles, where a third party (Other than the
drivers and/or owners of the vehicles involved)
claims damages for loss or injuries, it is said
that, compensation is payable in respect of the
composite negligence of the drivers of those
vehicles - In case of contributory negligence
when a person suffers injury partly due to
negligence on part of another person or persons
and partly as a result of his own negligence, then
negligence on the part of injured which
contributed to the accident is referred to as his
contributory negligence - Words and Phrases -
"Composite negligence" "contributory negligence"
B. Tort Law - Negligence - Composite and
contributory negligence - Extent of liability and
proof of negligence, defined - In a case of
composite negligence, each wrongdoer is jointly
and severally liable to the injured for payment of
the entire damages and the injured person has
the choice of proceeding against all or any of
them - The injured need not establish the extent
of responsibility of each wrongdoer separately,
nor is it necessary for the court to determine the
extent of liability of each wrongdoer separately -
On the other hand, where the injured is guilty of
some negligence, his claim for damages is not
SCCH-7 40 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007.
defeated merely by reason of the negligence on
his part but the damages recoverable by him in
respect of the injured stand reduced in
proportion to his contributory negligence - Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, Ss. 166 and 173.
33. In support of the submission, the Learned Counsel
appearing for the Respondent No.3 has placed reliance upon the
decisions reported in,
i) (2008) 5 Supreme Court Cases 736 (Oriental
Insurance Company Limited V/s Rajni Devi and Others),
wherein, it is observed that,
A. The Motor vehicles Act, 1988 - S 163A -
Applicability - Accident involving owner of motor
vehicle - Liability of insurer - Compensation
claimed by heirs of owner of MC which was
involved in an accident resulting in his death -
Tribunal held the Insurance Company liable on
the basis of mere use of the vehicle even if the
deceased had no comprehensive policy -
Sustainability - Held, S. 163 -A of the Motor
Vehicles Act cannot be said to have any
application in regard to an accident wherein the
owner of the motor vehicle himself is involved -
The question is no longer res integra - Liability
under S.163-A of the Act is on a recipient - The
heirs of the deceased could not have maintained
a claim in terms of S.163-A of the Act - Only the
terms of the contract of insurance could be taken
recourse to.
B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Ss. 165, 166
and 168 - Third party risk cases vis-à-vis own
damage cases - Liability of insurer - Held, it is
now a well -settled principle of law that, in a
case where third party is involved, the liability of
the Insurance Company would be unlimited -
Where compensation is claimed for the death of
the owner or another passenger of the vehicle,
SCCH-7 41 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007.
the contract of insurance being governed by the
contract qua contract, the claim of the Insurance
Company would depend upon the terms thereof.
The Respondent filed an application under
Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(the Act) claiming compensation for death of one
J. He was riding on a MC along with one S. Who
was actually on the driver's seat is not known.
The MC is said to have gone out of control
resulting in the accident. The Tribunal decided
against the Insurance Company on the premise
that, even if the deceased had no comprehensive
policy even then the claimants are entitled to
compensation because evidence is silent as to
who was driving the offending vehicle.
The appellant was before the supreme Court
there against by special leave.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court.
Held:
It is now a well settled principle of law that,
in a case where third party is involved, the
liability of the Insurance Company would be
unlimited. Where, however, compensation is
claimed for the death of the owner or another
passenger of the vehicle, the contract of
insurance being governed by the contract qua
contract, the claim of the Insurance Company
would depend upon the terms thereof. The
Tribunal, therefore, was not correct in taking the
view that, while determining the amount of
compensation, the only factor which would be
relevant would be merely the use of the Motor
Vehicle.
ii) ILR 2001 KAR 1670 (United India Insurance Co.
Ltd., V/s Siddanna Nimbanna Jawali and Another), wherein,
it is observed that,
SCCH-7 42 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007.
Motor vehicles Act, 1988 (Central Act No.59
of 1988) _ Section 149 - Compensation was
awarded to the owner of the vehicle for the
injuries sustained by him and insured was also
made liable. In an appeal by the Insurer the
Court held that, the insured cannot be
compensated by the insurer on the basis that,
the owner insured was also occupant of the Car
and as such he is also entitled for compensation.
Learned Counsel for the appellant relies on
judgment reported in MINU B Mehta V/s
Balakrishna wherein the Supreme Court has
noticed the objects of Section 95 particularly
with reference to the liability of the owner or the
Insurance Company.In the case of Oriental
Insurance Company V/s Sunitha Rathi the
Supreme court has ruled that, the liability of the
insurer arises only when the liability of the
insured has been upheld for the purpose of
indemnifying the insured under the contract of
insurance.
It is the argument of the Respondent that,
the owner is also an occupant of the motor Car
and therefore he is entitled for compensation.
The said argument though at the first blush is
very attractive but, on deeper consideration it
cannot be accepted for the simple reason that,
Section 2 deals with liability to third parties and
third parties cannot said to include the owner as
well. The word occupant is referable to the third
party. Moreover, the endorsement IMT 5
categorically states that, in consideration of the
payment of an additional premium it is hereby
understood and agreed that, the company
undertakes to pay compensation on the scale
provided below for bodily injury as hereinafter
defined sustained by any passenger other than
the insured and or his paid driver, attendant or
cleaner and or a person in the employment of the
insured coming within the scope of the
Workmen's compensation Act. Even otherwise,
the policy is between the insured and the
SCCH-7 43 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007.
Insurance Company, unless and otherwise a
specific clause is provided for coverage of the
insured also nothing can be read into a policy
thereby widening the very conditions and
applicability of the policy. Therefore form the
reading of the very policy it is clear to medical
expenses that, the insured owner cannot said to
be a person covered by this policy. In these
circumstances, I am of the view that, the finding
of the learned Judge is unsustainable.
In the light of the clear pronouncement of
law by the Supreme Court in the case of Minu B
Mehta Vs. Balakrishna and in the light of the
policy it is clear to medical expenses that, the
owner of the vehicle cannot file a claim petition
against the Insurance Company for the accident
caused by his own driver and claim
compensation. In my view what the Tribunal has
done is nothing but, introducing a clause which
is not there in the policy and which cannot be
done by the Tribunal. The Tribunal cannot create
a new contract and any such creation is without
jurisdiction. In the circumstances this appeal is
accepted. The impugned award in so far as
fastening the liability on the Insurance Company
is set aside. No costs.
34. My answers to the above said Issues are as follows;
In M.V.C.No.1714/2007
Issue No.1 : In the Negative,
Issue No.2 : In the Negative,
Issue No.3 : As per the final Order,
Additional : In the Negative,
Issue
SCCH-7 44 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007.
In M.V.C.No.1715/2007
Issue No.1 : In the Negative,
Issue No.2 : In the Negative,
Issue No.3 : As per the final Order,
Additional : In the Negative,
Issue
In M.V.C.No.1716/2007
Issue No.1 : In the Negative,
Issue No.2 : In the Negative,
Issue No.3 : As per the final Order,
Additional : In the Negative,
Issue
for the following;
REASONS
35. ISSUE NO.1 AND ADDITIONAL ISSUE IN ALL THE
CASES :- The P.W.1, who is the Petitioner No.1 in M.V.C.
No.1714/2007 and Petitioner in M.V.C.No.1715/2007 and
M.V.C.No.1716/2010, has stated in her examination-in-chief
that, on 24.06.2006 herself and her father
C.Venkataramanappa and her mother Nagamani were going to
Dharmastala from Bangalore in Maruthi Car bearing
Registration No.KA-05-MC-4619, which belongs to her father,
driven by one licensed driver Shankar on N.H.48 and on the
way, in between Siddapura Village and Nagegowdana Palya, in
front of one Nandana Pultry Farm, their driver slowed the Car,
due to a road turning by keeping the Car on the extreme left
side of the road at about 4.00 P.M. and at the same time, one
SCCH-7 45 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007.
Tractor and Trailer bearing Registration No.KA-06-TA-470 and
KA-06-TA-471, respectively, came from opposite direction at
high speed, in a rash and negligent manner came to the wrong
side of the road, i.e., to the other side of the road and dashed
violently against their Car. She has further stated that, due to
heavy impact, their Car was capsized and all of them caught
inside the Care and sustained grievous injuries and her father
C.Venkataramanappa succumbed to the injuries on the spot
and her mother Nagamani was shifted to the Government
Hospital Kunigal, wherein, she succumbed to the injuries and
she had sustained grievous injuries and immediately, she was
taken to the Government Hospital, Kunigal, inturn to Bangalore
Hospital and she took one day treatment and then, she got
admitted to Rajashekar Hospital on the same day, i.e.,
25.06.2006. She has further stated that, in the said Hospital
fracture of pubic ramus left side, fracture left sacral area were
noticed and treated as an inpatient from 25.06.2006 to
01.07.2006 and thereafter, she got admitted to Chirag Hospital
at J.P. Nagar, Bangalore on 09.08.2006 and took treatment as
an inpatient till 26.08.2006. She has further stated that, the
accident was occurred due to carelessness, rash and negligent
driving of the Tractor and Trailer by its driver and the
jurisdictional Amruthur Police of Kunigal Taluk have registered
a false case as against the driver of their Car, by taking a false
statement by one A.R. Veerabhadraiah, who is not an eye
witness to the accident and the Police have not recorded her
statement at any point of time, neither in the Hospital nor at
her home. She has further stated that, she is an eye witness to
the accident and after she came to know that, the Police have
registered a false case as against their driver Shankar, she
SCCH-7 46 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007.
rushed to Amruthur Police Station and lodged a written
complaint and the Sub-Inspector of the Police station have
stated that, since there is already a case has been registered,
they will not entertain any other complaints and thereafter, she
filed a private complaint as against the owner of the vehicle and
against the Sub-Inspector in P.C.R.No.25/2007 on the file of the
Hon'ble J.M.F.C. Kunigal and the said complaint is pending for
adjudication. She has further stated that, the Police have not
recorded her statement and the alleged statement recorded by
the Police is false and the Police without going to the spot of the
accident, have drawn mahazar in the Police Station just to
please the driver and the owner of the Tractor and Trailer. She
has further stated that, the owner of the Tractor and Trailer,
who is close relative of the then sitting M.L.A. of Kunigal Taluk
and the Police just to please the R.C. Owner of the vehicle, who
is the Respondent No.2, who had political background and
influential person in the Taluk, for the best reason known to
them, the Police have registered a false case against the driver
of the Car. She has further stated that, the Car was driven
extreme care on the correct side of the road by observing all
traffic rules with a moderate speed.
36. The P.W.3, who is the Petitioner No.2 in M.V.C.
No.1714/2007 has also stated in his examination-in-chief that, on
24.06.2006, his father along with his second wife and Petitioner
No.1, was traveling from Bangalore to Dharmasthala in a Maruthi
Car and on the way, they met with an accident with a Tractor-
Trailer, in which, his father and his second wife died on the spot
and the Petitioner No.1 was grievously injured and some persons
by looking through his father's Identity Card, intimated them
SCCH-7 47 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007.
regarding the accident and they immediately rushed to the spot
and on reaching the spot, they came to known that, the Petitioner
No.1 was admitted in the Hospital and his father had passed
away. He has further stated that, it was learnt by them that, the
accident was due to the gross negligence of the driver of the
Tractor-Trailer, who was driving in a rash and negligent manner
and the driver of the their vehicle was driving the vehicle very
slowly on the left side of the road by following all traffic rules and
regulations. He has further stated that, the accident was in
question took place due to the sole negligence of the Tractor-
Trailer and the Petitioner No.1 is an eye witness to the accident
and states that, the Tractor and Trailer was coming in high speed
and rash and negligent manner and the driver of the said vehicle
was the sole architect of the said vehicle.
37. The Petitioners have produced Ex.P.20 Certified Copies
of Order Sheet relating to C.C.No.25/2007, Ex.P.21 FIR in Crime
No.32/2007 relating to Amruthur Police Station and Ex.P.22
Private Complaint. They have also produced Ex.P.4 Inquest
Mahazar relating to Sri.Venkataramanappa, Ex.P.6 Inquest
Mahazar relating to the Nagamani, Ex.P.9 Post-mortem Report
relating to Venkataramanappa, Ex.P.9 Post-mortem Report
relating to Nagamani, Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.11 Wound Certificates,
Ex.P.12 and Ex.P.13 Discharge Summaries and Ex.P.14 Medical
Reports relating to P.W.1, who is a Petitioner No.1 in M.V.C.
No.1714/2007 and Petitioner in both M.V.C.No.1715/2007 and
M.V.C.No.1715/2007. They have also produced Ex.P.17 Letter
written to the Police Officer, Ex.P.18 Postal Acknowledgements
and Ex.P.19 Postal Receipts.
SCCH-7 48 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007.
38. Based on the above said oral version of P.W.1 and
P.W.2 coupled with the above said material documents, it cannot
be said that, due to high speed, rash and negligent manner of
driving of the Tractor and Trailer bearing Registration No.KA-06-
TA-470 and KA-06-TA-471 by its driver, the said road traffic
accident was taken place, as, the Petitioners have themselves
produced Ex.P.1 FIR and Complaint and Ex.P.2 Spot Mahazar,
Ex.P.3 MVI Report, Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.7 Statement of Witnesses,
which clearly disclosed that, based on the complaint lodged by
Sri.A.R. Veerabhadraiah S/o N.K. Rajashekaraiah, the Amruthur
Police have registered a criminal case as against the driver of the
Car bearing Registration No.KA-05-MC-4619, wherein, the P.W.1
and her parents were traveling and the said complaint is lodged
on 24.06.2006 at 5.30 P.M. itself and there is no delay as such in
lodging the said complaint and the Investigating Officer has made
thorough investigation by recording the statements of witnesses,
in respect of the said road traffic accident. Further, the Petitioners
have not produced the charge sheet filed by the Investigating
Officer in the said Criminal case. However, the R.W.2, the
Administrative Officer of the Respondent No.1 has produced
Ex.R.3 Charge sheet, which clearly disclosed that, the
Investigating Officer has filed a charge sheet as against the driver
of the said Maruthi Car bearing Registration No.KA-05-MC-4619,
wherein, the deceased and P.W.1 were traveling, for the offences
punishable under Section 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of IPC. It is
further clearly mentioned in Ex.R.3 Charge sheet that, due to high
speed, rash and negligent manner of the driving of the said Car by
its driver, the said road traffic accident was taken place on
24.06.2006 at 4.00 P.M. near Nagegowdanapalya, NH-48 Road
Curving and the accidental spot is the turning place, wherein, the
SCCH-7 49 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007.
driver of the said Car drove the same on the extreme right side of
the road and dashed against the Tractor and Trailer bearing
Registration No.KA-06-TA-470 and KA-06-TA-471, which was
coming on the opposite direction on the extreme left side of the
said road by loading sand and the said Car hit to the front portion
of the said Tractor and due to the said impact, Car fell down on
the road side footpath of the said road and the said Tractor and
Car were damaged and the P.W.1 and driver of the Car sustained
grievous injuries and the father of the P.W.1, namely,
Sri.Venkataramanappa died in the spot itself and her mother
Nagamani succumbed to the injuries on the way to the Hospital to
Kunigal.
39. On perusal of the contents of Ex.R.3 Charge sheet, it
prima-facie appears that, the entire negligence is on the part of
the driver of the Car and there is no negligence on the part of the
driver of the Tractor and Trailer.
40. No doubt, on perusal of the above said material
documents and oral version of P.W.1 and P.W.2, it appears that,
on 24.06.2006 at 4.00 P.M., the road traffic accident was taken
place in between Car bearing Registration No.KA-05-MC-4619 and
Tractor and Trailer bearing Registration No.KA-06-TA-470 and KA-
06-TA-471 at Nagegowdanapalya, wherein, C.Venkataranappa
succumbed to the injuries in the spot itself and his wife Nagamani
was also sustained injuries and she died during transit due to the
accidental injuries, when she was shifted to the Government
Hospital, Kunigal and the P.W.1 had sustained grievous injuries
and they were all traveling in the said Car at the time of accident,
which was driven by their driver and by admitting as an inpatient
SCCH-7 50 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007.
in the Hospital from 24.06.2006 to 01.07.2006 and 09.08.2006 to
26.08.2006, the P.W.1 taken treatment to the said grievous
injuries and the said deceased Sri. Venktaramanappa and Smt.
Nagamani are the parents of the P.W.1 and the said deceased Sri.
Venkataramanappa is also a father of P.W.2.
41. It is further clear from the evidence of P.W.2 that, he is
the only hearsay witness and as stated by the P.W.1, he has given
his said evidence. Though the P.W.1 is an eye witness and also
victim of the said alleged accident, except her oral version, no
acceptable material documentary evidence is available on record
to consider their case that, due to high speed, rash and negligent
manner of the driving of the said Tractor and Trailer by its driver,
the said road traffic accident was taken place. The above said oral
version of P.W.1 is clearly quite contrary to the contents of Ex.P.1
FIR and Complaint, Ex.P.2 Mahazar, Ex.P.3 MVI Report, Ex.P.5
and Ex.P.7 Statement of witnesses and Ex.R.3 Charge sheet.
42. No doubt, by way of amendment, the Petitioners have
inserted in all the petitions that, the accident in question took
place due to the composite negligence of both Tractor and Trailer
and Maruthi Car. In this regard, the P.W.1 has stated in her
examination-in-chief that, due to composite negligence of Car
bearing Registration No.KA-05-MC-4619 and Tractor and Trailer
bearing Registration No.KA-06-TA-470 and KA-06-TA-471
respectively, the accident took place and this accident was
occurred due to the negligence of both the said vehicles by its
respective drivers and both the drivers are equally responsible for
the said accident. The said stand taken by the Petitioners in all
the cases, is after remanding these matters and the P.W.1 herself
SCCH-7 51 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007.
has adduced further evidence in this regard. Except her oral
version, the P.W.1, who is the Petitioner in all the cases, no
acceptable material documentary evidence produced to consider
that, due to composite negligence of the drivers of both Car
bearing Registration No.KA-05-MC-4619 and Tractor and Trailer
bearing Registration No.KA-06-TA-470 and KA-06-TA-471, the
said road traffic accident was taken place. As this Tribunal has
already observed and come to the conclusion based on the Ex.R.3
Charge sheet that, the entire negligence is on the part of the driver
of the said Car and there is no negligence on the part of the driver
of the Tractor and Trailer. Even after remanding, the Petitioners
did not Care to produce any charge sheet or any acceptable
material Police records to show that, there is a composite
negligence on the part of the drivers of both Car and Tractor and
Trailer. The P.W.1 in her cross-examination has further clearly
stated that, the name of the driver of the Car, who drive the same
at the time of accident, is Shankar and as per Ex.R.3 Charge
Sheet, the Investigating Officer has filed a Charge sheet as against
their Car driver. Further, except Ex.P.20 Order Sheet relating to
P.C.R.No.25/2007 and Ex.P.21 FIR in Crime No.32/2007 relating
to Amruthur Police Station and Ex.P.22 Private Complaint under
Section 190(1) (A) R/w Section 200 of Cr.P.C. filed before the
Hon'ble Principal, J.M.F.C at Kunigal, no material documents
produced by the Petitioners to show that, due to composite
negligence of Car bearing Registration No.KA-05-MC-4619 and
Tractor and Trailer bearing Registration No. KA-06-TA-470 and
KA-06-TA-471, the said road traffic accident was taken place by
its respective drivers. Even the P.W.1 has not disclosed what had
happened in the said private complaint, which has been filed by
her. Furthermore, it is not the case of the Petitioners that, they
SCCH-7 52 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007.
have challenged the very registration of Crime No.70/2006 as well
as the contents of the Ex.R.3 Charge Sheet before the Hon'ble
Appellate Court and it is set-aside by the Hon'ble Appellate Court
by holding that, due to composite negligence of the said Car and
Tractor and Trailer, by its drivers, the alleged road traffic accident
was taken place and not otherwise.
43. It is also not established by the Petitioners that,
though the Investigating Officer has filed Ex.R.3 Charge Sheet
in the Criminal Case, it is ended with acquittal as the
prosecution has utterly failed to prove that, due to high speed
and rash and negligent manner of driving of the Car bearing
Registration No.KA-05-MC-1619, the said road traffic accident
was taken place. Even, by examining the witness, who have
given Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.7 Statements, the Petitioners have not
established that, whatever recorded by the Police in Ex.P.5 and
Ex.P.7 Statements as well as in Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.6 Inquest are
all false and they have not stated so before the Police at the time
of investigation and they have been recorded by the Police
themselves without enquired them, but, the actual fact is due to
composite negligence of the drivers of both Car and Tractor-
Trailer. Even the Petitioners have not examined the
Investigating Officer, who has filed Ex.R.3 Charge Sheet, as
witness, on their behalf to show that, without proper
investigation and without inspecting the accidental spot
properly, he has filed the charge sheet as against the driver of
the Car alone. Further, the Petitioners have not disclosed what
had happen the said criminal case, wherein, the Ex.R.3 Charge
Sheet filed by the Investigating Officer. Further, the Petitioners
did not Care to examine the driver of the said Car, who is also
SCCH-7 53 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007.
an eye witness as well as accused in the said criminal case.
From this, it appears that, to disbelieve and discard the
contents of Ex.P.1 FIR and Complaint, Ex.P.2 Mahazar and
Ex.R.3 Charge Sheet, nothing is available on record on behalf of
the Petitioners. More so, it is not the case of the Petitioners that,
there is a head on collusion in between the said Car and Tractor
and Trailer.
44. It is pertinent to note here that, the Petitioners have
not produced the Spot Hand Sketch prepared by the Investigating
Officer at the time of investigation. What prevented them to
produce the Spot Sketch, that has not been properly explained by
the Petitioners either in their evidence or in their petitions. If
really, the alleged accident was not taken place only on the
negligence on the part of the driver of the Car and it caused due to
composite negligence of drivers of Car and Tractor and Trailer, it
could be seen from the Spot Hand Sketch and the same could
have been definitely produced by the Petitioners to consider their
case. But, the Petitioners have not produced Hand Sketch. It is
very much fatal to consider their case.
45. The P.W.1 in her cross-examination has stated that,
she cannot say the speed of the vehicle, as the driver of their Car
was not driving in high speed and she was sitting in the front seat
and she was awake at the time of accident. She has further stated
that, their vehicle was proceeding on the left side of the road and
she did not observed offending Tractor and Trailer before the
accident and she cannot say on which side, the Tractor was
proceeding. From the said evidence of P.W.1, it appears that,
though the P.W.1 was sitting in the front seat of their Car, she did
SCCH-7 54 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007.
not aware about the Tractor and Trailer, which came on the
opposite side before the accident. To substantiate the evidence of
P.W.1 that, at the time of accident, the Car was proceeding on the
left side of the road, no authenticated documentary evidence is
available on record. As this Tribunal has already observed that, in
Ex.R.3 Charge Sheet, it is clearly mentioned that, at the time of
accident, the Tractor and Trailer was proceeding on the extreme
left side of the road. Even, the P.W.1 has shown her ignorance
about the filing of the Ex.R.3 Charge Sheet and filing of
Complaint, in her cross-examination. She has further clearly
stated that, she does not know what is the result of Private
Complaint lodged by her. She has also shown her ignorance about
whether the Police have submitted 'B' Report in the Private
Complaint, which was filed by her and referred by the Hon'ble
Court for investigation. Mere production of Ex.P.17 Letter, Ex.P.20
Order sheet, Ex.P.21 FIR and Ex.P.22 Private Complaint itself is
not sufficient to consider the case of the Petitioners that, due to
composite negligence of drivers of both Car and Tractor and
Trailer, the alleged road traffic accident was taken place. Further,
though the accident was taken place on 24.06.2006, the P.W.1
has lodged Ex.P.22 Complaint on 14.02.2007 and Ex.P.21 FIR is
registered Amruthur Police on 13.03.2007, i.e., after a lapse of one
month from the date of accident. As per Ex.P.12 and Ex.P.13
Discharge Summaries, the P.W.1, who is an eye witness was
admitted in the Hospital to take treatment to the injuries
sustained in the said road traffic accident from 25.06.2006 to
01.07.2006 and 09.08.2006 to 26.08.2006, i.e., for 2 times. If
really, the said road traffic accident was taken place due to
composite negligence of the drivers of both Car and Tractor and
Trailer, the P.W.1 could have been definitely informed about the
SCCH-7 55 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007.
accident to the Doctors immediately after her admission in the
Hospital and the Hospital Authorities could have definitely
registered the medico legal case and intimated the same
immediately to the concerned jurisdictional Police Station. No MLC
register is produced by the P.W.1 to show that, with a history of
road traffic accident, wherein, both Car bearing Registration No.
KA-05-M C-4619 and Tractor and Trailer bearing Registration
No.KA-06-TA-470 and KA-06-TA-471 were involved due to their
composite negligence, she had sustained such kind of injuries and
as such, she came to the Hospital to take treatment to the said
accidental injuries. On the other hand, admittedly, the accident
was taken place on 24.06.2006 at 4.00 P.M. and the Complaint
was lodged on 24.06.2006 at 5.30 P.M., i.e., after 1 and ½ hour
from the time of accident, which implies that, whatever narrated
in the complaint are true and correct and there is no collusion
with Police by the owner of the Tractor and Trailer as alleged by
Petitioners. Therefore, the case made out by the Petitioners that, a
false case has been registered as against the driver of their Car is
false and for away from truth.
46. The production of Ex.P.17 Letter written by P.W.1 to
the Police, Ex.P.18 Postal Acknowledgements and Ex.P.19 Postal
Receipts also not helped to the Petitioners to consider their case,
as, Ex.P.17 Letter has been written by the P.W.1 on 09.10.2006,
though the accident was taken place on 24.06.2006, i.e., after a
lapse of 3 and ½ months. Furthermore, the Petitioners have filed
all these petitions under Section 166 of M.V. Act, 1989 and not
under Section 163(A) of the said Act, though they have made the
Insurance Company of their Car as Respondent No.3 in the
present petitions. Based on the use of said Car and Tractor and
SCCH-7 56 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007.
Trailer, the Petitioners have claimed compensation from the
Respondents No.1 to 3.
47. The R.W.2 has clearly stated in his examination-in-
chief that, the concerned jurisdictional Police authorities, after
thorough investigation, had filed Ex.R.3 Charge Sheet as against
the driver of the Car bearing Registration No.KA-05-M C-4619,
namely, Mr.C.Shankar S/o Chandrashekar, for the offences
punishable under Section 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of IPC. She
has further clearly stated in her cross-examination that, based on
the said documents, she has given such evidence.
48. From the above said discussion, it is made crystal
clear that, whatever the documents produced by the Petitioners
to prove their specific case are quite against their own case and
in support of their specific case that, due to composite
negligence of drivers of Car bearing Registration No.KA-05-MC-
4619 and Tractor and Trailer bearing Registration No.KA-06-TA-
470 and KA-06-TA-471, the said road traffic accident was taken
place, wherein, deceased Sri.Venkataramanappa S/o Chellappa
succumbed to the spot itself, Smt. Nagamani W/o Late
Venktaramanappa succumbed to the injuries on the way to the
Hospital and the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.1716/2007, who is a
daughter of the said deceased had sustained injuries, no
acceptable material evidence is forthcoming on behalf of the
Petitioners. It is made crystal clear from the Police and Medical
documents produced by the Petitioners that, due to high speed
and rash and negligent manner of driving of the Car bearing
Registration No.KA-05-MC-4619 by its driver itself, the said
road traffic accident was taken place and not otherwise.
SCCH-7 57 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007.
Accordingly, I answered Issue No.1 and Additional Issue in
all the cases in the Negative.
49. ISSUE NO.2 in all the cases :- No doubt, while
answering Issue No.1 and Additional Issue in all the cases, this
Tribunal has already observed and come to the conclusion that,
in the said road traffic accident, deceased C.Venkataramanappa
S/o Chellappa succumbed to the injuries in the spot itself, his
wife Smt. Nagamani succumbed to the injuries on the way to
the Hospital and their daughter, who is the P.W.1 had
sustained grievous injuries and by admitting as an inpatient
from 25.06.2006 to 01.07.2006 and 09.08.2006 to 26.08.2006,
she took treatment to the accidental injuries in the Hospital.
50. The P.W.1 has stated in her evidence about the
difficulties and disability, which are suffered by her due to the
accidental injuries. In support of the same, she has also
examined Dr.Shivarajaiah, as P.W.2, who has stated that, the
P.W.1 is suffered from permanent disability about 45% for left
lower limb and 15% to the whole body. The P.W.2 has also
produced Ex.P.26 Case Sheet 2 in numbers and Ex.P.27 X-ray
Films. He has further stated that, the fractures are mal-united.
51. The P.W.1 has also stated in her evidence about the
age and avocation of her deceased parents, expenses incurred
by her for transportation of dead body of her parents and
funeral obsequies and mental agony and untold misery due to
untimely death of her parents and she has also stated about her
avocation and income and the amount spent by her for her
treatment. In support of the same, she has produced Ex.P.14
SCCH-7 58 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007.
Medical Report, Ex.P.15 Medical Bills and Ex.P.16 Medical
Prescriptions and Ex.P.30 Salary Slip.
52. By producing Ex.P.24 Ration Card, Ex.P.28 Death
Certificate relating to C.P. Sharada, Ex.P.29 Order passed in
M.C.No.1/87, the P.W.1 has established that, she is a daughter
of deceased C.Venkataramanappa through his second wife and
the Petitioners No.2 and 3 are the sons of her deceased father
through his first wife.
53. But, the above said material evidence adduced by
the Petitioners no way helped to calming compensation under
different heads in respect of the death of C.Venkataramanappa
S/o Chellappa, his wife Smt. Nagamani and the accidental
injuries sustained by the P.W.1 in the road traffic accident, as,
while answering Issue No.1 and Additional Issue, this Tribunal
has already come to the conclusion that, the Petitioners have
utterly failed to prove their specific case that, due to composite
negligence of drivers of Car bearing Registration No.KA-05-MC-
4619 and Tractor and Trailer bearing Registration No.KA-06-TA-
470 and KA-06-TA-471, the said road traffic accident was taken
place, wherein, deceased Sri.Venkataramanappa S/o Chellappa
succumbed to the spot itself, Smt. Nagamani W/o Late
Venktaramanappa succumbed to the injuries on the way to the
Hospital and the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.1716/2007, who is a
daughter of the said deceased had sustained injuries, but, it is
made crystal clear from the Police and Medical documents
produced by the Petitioners themselves that, due to high speed
and rash and negligent manner of driving of the Car bearing
Registration No.KA-05-MC-4619 by its driver itself, the said
SCCH-7 59 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007.
road traffic accident was taken place and not otherwise.
Therefore the Petitioners are not entitled for any compensation.
54. Admittedly, deceased C.Venkataramanappa, who is
a father of the P.W.1, was an owner of the Car bearing
Registration No.KA-05-MC-4619. In this regard, the Respondent
No.3 has produced B-Register Extract relating to the said Car,
which disclosed that, the registered owner of the said Car is
deceased Sri. C.Venkataramanappa S/o Chellappa, at the time
of accident. The Respondent No.3 is an Insurance Company,
who has issued the Insurance Policy to the said Car. In this
regard, the Respondent No.3 has examined the R.W.1, who is its
Administrative Officer and through him, Ex.R.1 Insurance
Policy in respect of package policy of the said Car is produced.
No doubt, the occupants of the Car and 3rd parties are entitled
for compensation, if the vehicle was insured under package
policy is a comprehensive policy. But, as this Tribunal has
already come to the conclusion that, the Petitioners have utterly
failed to prove their specific case that, due to rash and negligent
driving of the drivers of both Car and Tractor and Trailer, the
said road traffic accident was taken place. Furthermore, as per
Ex.R.3 Charge Sheet, the charge sheet is filed as against the
driver of the said Car. Further, the P.W.1 in her cross-
examination has clearly stated that, they have made an O.D.
Claim and Insurance Company has settled OD Claim in respect
of their Car. At the time of accident, the father of the P.W.1 was
a R.C. Owner of the said Car. There is no dispute that, all the
Petitioners are legal representatives of the deceased Sri.
Venkataramanappa, who is a R.C. Owner of the said Car, at the
time of accident. It is also clear from the contents of Ex.P.23
SCCH-7 60 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007.
SSLC Marks Card and Ex.P.24 Ration Card, Ex.P.31 Order
Sheet and Ex.P.32 Plaint of O.S.No.222/1995 and Ex.P.33
Plaint of O.S.No.16944/2006 that, the Petitioner No.1 is a
daughter through 2nd wife and the Petitioners No.2 and 3 in
M.V.C.No.1714/2007 are the sons through 1st wife of deceased
C.Venkataramanappa, who was a R.C. Owner of the said Car
bearing Registration No.KA-05-MC-4619. When all the
Petitioners are the legal representatives of the said deceased
C.Venkataramanappa, who was a R.C. Owner of the said Car,
they are stepped into the shoe of the said deceased, i.e., became
owners of the said Car. The Petitioners, being the owners of the
said Car, have no right to claim any compensation from their
own Insurance Company due to the accident caused by their
own driver. Therefore, the petition filed by the Petitioners is not
maintainable as against the Respondent No.3.
55. It is clear from the contents of Ex.R.3 Charge Sheet
that, at the time of accident, the said Tractor and Trailer
bearing Registration No.KA-06-TA-470 and KA-06-TA-471 was
Carrying sand. The Insurance Policy relating to the said Tractor
and Trailer is marked at Ex.R.1, which has been produced by
the Respondent No.1 through R.W.2, which is a Kissan Package
Policy. There is no dispute that, the Respondent No.1 was an
Owner and the Respondent No.2 is an insurer of the said
Tractor and Trailer at the time of accident.
56. The Petitioners being the legal heirs of the deceased
C.Venkataramanappa, who is the owner of the Car bearing
Registration No.KA-05-MC-4619 and also the insured, cannot
be both claimant and also the recipient and the owner cannot
SCCH-7 61 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007.
file a petition against the Insurance Company for the death or
injuries sustained in an accident caused by their own driver.
Further, when the driver of the said Car has been charge
sheeted, the Petitioners cannot claim any compensation from
their own Insurance Company and the insured, i.e., the said
deceased is not a third party for claiming any compensation
from the Insurance Company. Hence, the petitions filed by the
Petitioners are not maintainable.
57. From the terms and conditions of the Ex.R.4
Insurance Policy, it appears that, the said Tractor and Trailer
has been used for Agricultural purpose only. Since, it is clear
from the contents of Ex.R.3 Charge Sheet and evidence of R.W.2
that, at the time of accident, the said Tractor and Trailer was
Carrying sand, which is clear violation of terms and conditions
of Ex.R.4 Insurance Policy relating to the said Tractor and
Trailer. In view of the above said reasons, the Petitioners are not
entitled for any compensation in all the petitions and the
Respondents are not liable to pay any compensation to the
Petitioners. Therefore, all the petitions filed by the Petitioners
are liable to be rejected. In view of the said reasons, the
principles enunciated in the decisions cited by the Learned
Counsel appearing for the Petitioners are not applicable to the
present facts and circumstances of the case on hand. On the
other hand, the principles enunciated in the decisions cited by
the Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.3 are
aptly applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the
case on hand. Accordingly, I answered Issue No.2 in all the
cases in the Negative.
SCCH-7 62 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007.
58. ISSUE NO.3 :- For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed
to pass the following;
ORDER
The petition filed by the Petitioners in M.V.C. No.1714/2007, M.V.C. No.1715/2007 and M.V.C.No.1716/2007 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, are hereby rejected.
No order as to costs.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then, pronounced by me in the open Court on this, the 24th day of April, 2015.) (INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR) IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE PETITIONERS :-
P.W.1 : Shashikala
P.W.2 : Dr.Shivarajaiah
P.W.3 : G.V.Shivaprakash
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED BY THE PETITIONERS :-
Ex.P.1 CC of FIR andComplaint Ex.P.2 CC of Mahazar Ex.P.3 CC of IMV Report Ex.P.4 CC of Inquest Mahazar of Sri. Venkataramanappa Ex.P.5 CC of Statement of Witnesses Ex.P.6 CC of Inquest Mahazar of Nagamani SCCH-7 63 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007. Ex.P.7 CC of Statement of Witness Ex.P.8 CC of PM of Venkataramanappa Ex.P.9 CC of PM Report of Nagamani Ex.P.10 CC of Wound Certificate of Shashikala Ex.P.11 CC of Wound Certificate of Rajashekar Hospital Ex.P.12 Discharge Summary of Rajashekar Ex.P.13 Discharge Summary of Chirag Hospital Ex.P.14 Medical Reports Ex.P.15 Medical Bills Ex.P.16 Medical Prescriptions Ex.P.17 Copy of the Letter written to the Police Officers Ex.P.18 3 Postal Acknowledgment Ex.P.19 3 Postal Receipts Ex.P.20 CC of Order of CC.25 /07 Ex.P.21 FIR in Crime No.3207 of Amrutur P.S. Ex.P.22 CC of Private Complaint Ex.P.23 Copy of SSLC Marks Card Ex.P.24 Copy of Ration Card Ex.P.25 Salary Slip of the deceased Venkataramanappa Ex.P.26 Case Sheet (2 nos.) Ex.P.27 X-ray film Ex.P.28 Death Certificate of Kum.C.P.Sharada Ex.P.29 Orders passed in M.C.No.1/87 Ex.P.30 Salary Slip issued by State Bank of Mysore Ex.P.31 Order Sheet of O.S.No.222/95 Ex.P.32 Copy of the Plaint of O.S.No.222/95 Ex.P.33 Copy of Plaint of O.S.No.16944/2006 Ex.P.34 E.Mail Conversation Document
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE RESPONDENTS :-
R.W.1 : Sri.M.S.H. Beig
R.W.2 : Parimala P.
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED BY THE RESPONDENTS :-
Ex.R.1 : Copy of Insurance Policy relating to Maruti Vehicle bearing No.KA-05-MC- 4619 Ex.R.2 : Authorization Letter SCCH-7 64 MVC .1714, 1715 & 1716/2007. Ex.R.3 : True Copy of Charge Sheet relating to Crime No.70/2006 Ex.R.4 : True Copy of Insurance Policy (INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR) IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.