Bangalore District Court
Tejapal vs ) Ratanlal on 30 January, 2016
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AT BENGALURU
(SCCH:15)
DATED: THIS THE 30th DAY OF JANUARY, 2016
PRESENT : Smt.K.Katyayini, B.Com., LL.B.,
XIII Addl.Small Cause Judge
& Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
MVC No.2899/2015
Petitioner/s Tejapal,
S/o Popa Ram,
Aged about 39 years,
R/at No.3, Mandri,
Thasil Khetri,
Jhunjhuno District,
Rajasthan State.
(By Pleader - Sri.Venkataramu.)
V/s
Respondent/s 1) Ratanlal, B.,
S/o Bhajanlal,
No.504, Andra Muniyappa Layout,
Chelakere,
Bengaluru - 560 043.
(RC owner of Honda Activa
Bearing Reg.No.KA-03 HY-1189)
(By Pleader - Exparte.)
2) Bajaj Allianz General
Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Golden Heights, 4th Floor,
No.1/2, 59th Cross, 4th M Block,
Rajajinagar, Bengaluru-560 010.
(Policy No.OG-15-1701-1802-
00052577 valid from 23.01.2015
to 22.01.2016)
(By Pleader - Sri.V.Subramani.)
(SCCH-15) 2 MVC.2899/2015
JUDGMENT
Petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 166 of MV Act seeking grant of compensation on account of injuries he has suffered in RTA.
2. The brief case of petitioner is that on 07.07.2015 at about 4:15 p.m., he was proceeding on the Honda Activa bearing registration No.KA-03 HY-1189 as the pillion rider. The scooter was being ridden by Rathanlal on OMBR Layout main road in rash and negligent manner. While so proceeding when they reached in front of HDFC bank, Banaswadi, the rider applied sudden brake.
b) Due to which, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Accident took place solely due to negligent riding of the scooter rider. Therefore, 1st respondent being the RC owner and 2nd respondent being the insurer of the scooter are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Therefore, prayed to allow the petition as sought for.
3. In response to due service of notices, 1st respondent put his appearance personally and (SCCH-15) 3 MVC.2899/2015 subsequently remained absentee. However, 2nd respondent has put its appearance through its counsel and filed its statement of objections to the main petition denying the petition averments.
b) It has admitted the policy and its force as on the date of accident, but has contended that its liability if any is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy such as driving licence and the vehicular documents.
c) It has specifically contended that the scooter rider did not have valid and effective driving licence to drive the class scooter and 1st respondent being RC owner had no valid vehicular documents to ply on the vehicle on the public place. Therefore, there is breach of policy conditions. Accordingly, it is not liable to pay the compensation. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition against it with costs.
4. On the above said pleadings of the parties, this Tribunal was pleased to frame the following issues.
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he has sustained injury due to RTA alleged to have been occurred on 07.07.2015 at about 4:15 p.m., on OMBR Layout Main Road, in front of HDFC Bank, (SCCH-15) 4 MVC.2899/2015 Banaswadi, Bengaluru due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of Honda Activa bearing registration No.KA-03 HY-1189?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what amount & from whom?
3. What order or award?
5. To prove the above said issues and to substantiate their respective contentions, petitioner has entered into witness box as PW-1. He has got examined the medical record consultant to cause production of the medical records as PW-2. Totally got exhibited 14 documents and closed his side. Counsel for 2nd respondent submitted that he has no oral evidence to lead. Heard arguments of both the sides on merits of the case and perused the record.
6. Now the findings of this Tribunal on the above said issues are answered in the;
1. Issue No.1: Affirmative.
2. Issue No.2: Petitioner is entitled for compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the realization in its entirety from 2nd respondent.
(SCCH-15) 5 MVC.2899/2015
3. Issue No.3: As per final order for the following reasons.
REASONS
7. ISSUE No.1:- Even 1st respondent put his appearance personall, subsequently he remained absent. Therefore, he is treated as absentee. Thus, there is no defence on behalf of 1st respondent on record. Even 1st respondent has denied the entire case of the petitioner, it has not took up any specific plea in its statement of objections to the main petition about the present issue.
8. However, in the cross-examination it is suggested to the petitioner that there is another vehicle involved in the accident i.e. autorickshaw and the accident is because of the negligent riding of the auto driver; since the auto had no insurance coverage, in collusion with the RC owner i.e. 1st respondent, petitioner came with present false petition.
9. But, admittedly, there is no pleading about the said defence in the statement of objections of 2nd respondent. Moreover, to substantiate the said defence, 2nd respondent has not let in any defence evidence. On (SCCH-15) 6 MVC.2899/2015 the other hand, it has submitted on its behalf that it has no oral evidence to lead.
10. Per contra to prove his case, petitioner himself has entered into witness box as PW-1. He has filed his affidavit evidence wherein he has reiterated the petition averments. He has specifically deposed that accident took place because of the negligent riding of the scooter rider i.e. 1st respondent.
11. In addition to his oral evidence he has also produced police papers true copies of FIR with complaint, spot mahazar, spot sketch, IMV report and charge sheet at Exs.P-1 to 5 respectively.
12. All the police papers categorically reveal that initially the jurisdictional police have registered the criminal case against the scooter rider i.e. 1st respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC and after investigation, they have charge sheeted him for the offences alleged.
13. There is no specific cross-examination on behalf of 2nd respondent about the police papers which are in clear consonance with the case of petitioner. Moreover, (SCCH-15) 7 MVC.2899/2015 there is presumption with regard to the police papers that they are prepared by the investigating officers during the discharge of their official duties in investigation of a crime.
14. Of course the said presumption is rebuttal one. But, no such rebuttal evidence, for that matter there is no defence at all let in by 2nd respondent. Hence, there is nothing on record to disbelieve the oral evidence of petitioner supported by the police papers at Ex.P-1 to 5 with regard to the negligence of 1st respondent resulted in the present accident.
15. So far the injuries suffered by him in the accident, petitioner apart from his oral evidence has also produced medical records i.e. the true copy of wound certificate, discharge summary, colour photographs, hospital and medical bills respectively at Ex.P-6 to 9 in his evidence.
16. He has also got produced inpatient file, x-ray films and CT scan films at Ex.P-12 to 14 through PW-2. The oral evidence of PW-2 and the medical records noted (SCCH-15) 8 MVC.2899/2015 above are in corroboration with the oral evidence of petitioner about his suffering injuries in the accident.
17. Moreover, if the line of cross-examination of 2nd respondent to the petitioner is taken note off, it is clear that even it has raised objections with regard to the nature of injuries; nature of treatment; quantum of disability; quantum of medical expenses and the medical reimbursement. It has not at all disputed the fact of petitioner suffering injuries in the present accident.
18. Accordingly, petitioner with his oral evidence with supportive oral evidence of PW-2 and the police papers as well as medical records noted above has successfully established that present accident is because of negligent riding of scooter rider i.e. 1st respondent and he has suffered injuries in the present accident. Therefore, issue No.1 is answered in affirmative.
19. ISSUE No.2:- In view of answering issue No.1 in affirmative, petitioner is entitled for compensation. Now, in respect of quantum. It is the case of petitioner that he was aged 39 years, was a carpenter and had income of Rs.15,000/- p.m. (SCCH-15) 9 MVC.2899/2015
20. To establish that petitioner with his oral evidence has produced the notarized copy of voters ID at Ex.P-10 which reveals his date of birth as 1978 and accident took place during 2015. So, as per Ex.P-10, as on the date of accident, petitioner was aged 39 years.
21. Moreover, in the police papers and in the medical records, his age is shown as 37 and 39 years. There is no cross-examination by other side about the age of petitioner.
22. Accordingly, there is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of petitioner that he was aged 39 years as on the date of accident which is higher end when compared to his age shown in the police papers. Accordingly, his age is accepted as 39 years, for which the proper multiplier applicable is 15.
23. So far as his avocation and income, petitioner with his oral evidence has not produced any evidence either oral or documentary. However, in the charge sheet it is stated that he is carpenter. It is elicited in his cross- examination that he has no educational qualification with regard to carpentry. At this stage, he has deposed (SCCH-15) 10 MVC.2899/2015 that he learnt it by interest. Hence, there is nothing on record to disbelieve the nature of avocation. Therefore, it is accepted that petitioner was a carpenter.
24. So far the quantum of income, admittedly there is no supportive evidence. Therefore, considering the age of the petitioner, the cost of living as on the date of accident and the fact that nature of avocation is skilled avocation, it is just and proper to take the notional income of petitioner at Rs.9,000/- per month.
25. It is the case of petitioner that he has suffered right side facial deep laceration, scalp laceration and other grievous injuries all over the body; took treatment in Specialist Hospital, Bengaluru; was treated as an inpatient from 07.07.2015 to 09.07.2015; still on follow up treatment and has incurred expenses more than Rs.50,000/-.
26. It is also his case that he became permanently disabled because of accidental injuries. Petitioner has reiterated the above petition averments in his affidavit evidence. In his cross-examination his chief evidence is (SCCH-15) 11 MVC.2899/2015 denied by way of suggestions which are in turn denied by him.
27. If the documents produced on behalf of the petitioner are taken note off, Ex.P-6 is the wound certificate and Ex.P-7 is the discharge summary issued by Specialist hospital. They show that petitioner was brought to their hospital on 07.07.2015 at about 4.40 p.m. with the history of RTA on the very day.
28. It is also there that petitioner was diagnosed for deep contused lacerated wound over face and scalp with bleeding which is simple injury; petitioner was in the hospital till 09.07.2015 and was treated in the form of wound debridement plus sort tissue repair and was discharged in stable condition.
29. The contents of inpatient file at Ex.P-12 and x- ray films and CT scan films at Ex.P-13 and 14 are in corroboration with the contents of Ex.P-6 and 7 wound certificate and discharge summary as well as the oral evidence of petitioner noted above. Ex.P-8, the colour photographs also supports the nature of injuries mentioned in the above medical records. (SCCH-15) 12 MVC.2899/2015
30. So, if the entire evidence on record is taken into consideration, it can be safely held that in the accident petitioner has suffered right side facial deep laceration, scalp laceration; was treated in the hospital for 3 days; in between he was treated conservatively and was discharged in stable condition.
31. To prove the medical expenditure, petitioner with his oral evidence has produced Ex.P-9, the hospital and medical bills totally 7 in nos. amounting to Rs.32,261.45. The bill at Sl.No.1 is inpatient receipt for Rs.28,944/-. The bill at Sl.No.2 is inpatient detailed bill. Bill at Sl.No.3 is advance paid receipts/the bill showing the details with regard to the payment of the inpatient bill at Sl.No.1.
32. The bills at Sl.No.2 to 7 are pharmacy bills which are not included in the inpatient bill. Moreover, there is no cross-examination by other side about Ex.P-9. So, it appears that petitioner has borne the medical expenditure on his own. Accordingly, he is entitled for the bills at Ex.P-9.
(SCCH-15) 13 MVC.2899/2015
33. Moreover, if the nature of injuries suffered by petitioner, nature of treatment and the hospital wherein he took treatment is private hospital are taken note off, there is nothing on record to disbelieve the said medical expenditure. On the other hand, it appears that petitioner incurred expenses more than that. Hence, it is thought just and proper to award medical expenditure at Rs.35,000/- including bills at Ex.P.9 series.
34. Even petitioner has contended that he became permanently disabled because of accidental injuries, admittedly, he has not let in any doctor's evidence. Therefore, considering the nature of injuries, it is just and proper to award the compensation under the head loss of amenities and comfort. In the result, petitioner is entitled for compensation under the heads mentioned below and the amount stated against them.
Pain and Sufferings Rs. 20,000/-
Loss of income during laid up Rs. 10,000/-
period, Diet, Nourishment and etc.
Attendant charges, Conveyance, Rs. 10,000/-
other Incidental Charges and etc.
Medical Expenditure Rs. 35,000/-
Loss of Amenities and Comfort Rs. 25,000/-
Total: Rs.1,00,000/-
(SCCH-15) 14 MVC.2899/2015
35. Considering the cost of living on the date of accident, it is thought fit to award interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization of the compensation amount in its entirety.
36. Now, in respect of liability. There is no dispute between the parties with regard to the fact that 1st respondent is the RC owner and 2nd respondent is the insurer of the Honda Activa. 2nd respondent has admitted the policy and its force on the date of accident, but has contended that its liability if any is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy such as driving licence and vehicular documents.
37. To substantiate its defence on breach of policy conditions, it has not at all let in any defence evidence. On the other hand, it is submitted on its behalf that it has no oral evidence to lead.
38. Therefore, if the entire evidence on record is taken into consideration as per Ex.P-5, the jurisdictional police have not charge sheeted the scooter rider i.e. 1st respondent either for driving licence or for the vehicular documents.
(SCCH-15) 15 MVC.2899/2015
39. So, it appears that on the date of accident, the scooter rider i.e. 1st respondent being the rider had valid and effective driving licence to ride the scooter in question and being the RC owner had valid and effective documents which were in order and in force as on the date of accident. Hence, 1st respondent being the RC owner is liable to pay the compensation and 2nd respondent being the insurer is liable to indemnify the said liability.
40. So, petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the realization of the compensation in its entirety from 2nd respondent. Issue No.2 is answered accordingly.
41. ISSUE No.3:- From the above discussions, this Tribunal proceeds to pass the following order.
ORDER The present petition filed by the petitioner under Section 166 of MV Act is hereby allowed in part with costs.
In the result, petitioner is entitled for compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- together with interest at 9% p.a. from the (SCCH-15) 16 MVC.2899/2015 date of petition till the realization in its entirety from 2nd respondent.
2nd respondent shall deposit the compensation amount together with interest and cost within 30 days from today.
On deposit of compensation amount, since after deducting the medical expenses, the compensation amount remains is meager, the entire compensation amount together with interest and cost is ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner through an account payee cheque without awaiting further orders.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw a decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced in the open Court by me on this the 30th day of January, 2016.) (K.KATYAYINI), XIII Addl. Judge & Member MACT Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
PW1: Tejpal PW2: Dr. Rangaraju
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS:
- None -(SCCH-15) 17 MVC.2899/2015
LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
Ex.P1 : True copy of FIR with Complaint, Ex.P2 : True copy of spot mahazar, Ex.P3 : True copy of spot sketch, Ex.P4 : True copy of IMV report, Ex.P5 : True copy of charge sheet, Ex.P6 : True copy of wound certificate, Ex.P7 : Discharge summary, Ex.P8 : Colour photographs (3 in nos.), Ex.P8(a): CD, Ex.P9 : Hospital and medical bills (7 in nos.) amounting to Rs.32,261.45, Ex.P10 : Notarized copy of Voter ID (original shown for perusal).
Ex.P11 : Authorization letter, Ex.P12 : Inpatient file, Ex.P13 : x-ray films (2 in nos.), Ex.P14 : CT scan films (5 in nos.).
LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS:
- Nil -
(K.KATYAYINI), XIII Addl. Judge & Member MACT Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.