Bangalore District Court
Ravi Kumar H.L vs Ramaiah on 3 June, 2024
KABC020180422020
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT BENGALURU.
(SCCH24)
Presided Over by Smt. Roopashri, B.Com., LL.B.,
XXII ADDL., SCJ & ACMM,
MEMBER - MACT,
BENGALURU.
Dated: This the 3rd day of June 2024
M.V.C. NO. 4033 OF 2020
PETITIONER/S
Sri.Ravi Kumar H L,
W/o Lakshminarayan,
Aged about 33 years,
R/at #65/2, 11th cross,
2nd main, Kaveripura,
Kamakshipalya,
Bengaluru 560 079.
(By Sri.Harish Kumar H, Advocate)
Vs
RESPONDENT/S:
1. Sri.Ramaih,
S/o Rangappa,
R/at Gubehalli Naruvagal Post,
Huliyur Hobli,
CN Halli Taluk,
Tumkur 572214.
SCCH-24 2 MVC 4033/2020
2. M/s United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Head Office at: 24,
Whites road, Chennai600014.
Branch Office at: Raghavendra Colony,
B.H road, Tiptur,
Tumkur District572202.
R/p by its Manager,
Policy No.0714023119P104376248
Policy valid from 05072019 to 04072020)
(R1Sri.Suresh Reddy,
R2By Sri.R.S Srikantareddy, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This claim petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 166 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident.
2. The case of the petitioner is as follows: That on 23032020 at about 730 p.m., the petitioner in his passenger Auto bearing No.KA05AD 2111 was proceeding towards his native place at Huraligere village, Koratagere Taluk, Tumkur with his uncle namely Narasimha Murthy and when they reached near Agraval Hotel, Bengaluru Tumakuru NH48 road, Dasanapura the said auto suddenly stopped, hence he got down from the auto and walked on the left side of the road to get the vehicle repaired and stood near the divider, SCCH-24 3 MVC 4033/2020 at that time the driver of TVSXL (Moped) vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA44U2884 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner, result of which the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Immediately the petitioner was shifted to Nelamangala Government Hospital and later for further treatment he was admitted to Gayathri Hospital on 25032020. He was there in the hospital till 26032020 as an inpatient. So far the petitioner has spent more than Rs.2,00,000/ towards medical and other incidental charges. Prior to the accident, the petitioner was hale and healthy. He was working as driver and thereby earning Rs.25,000/ per month. Due to permanent disability petitioner is not in a position to do the said work. He has suffered pain and sufferings, permanent disability, loss of income, loss of future income and other pecuniary and nonpecuniary damages.
3. The Respondent No.1 appeared through his counsel but he has not contested the case.
4. Respondent No.2- United India Insurance company .Ltd.,/ the Insurer of TVS XL (moped) vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA44U2884 has filed written statement and contended that the petition is bad for non joinder of SCCH-24 4 MVC 4033/2020 necessary and proper parties, that there is two days delay in lodging the complaint. They have admitted the coverage of insurance policy and their liability if any is subject to its terms and conditions. It is contended by the respondent no.2 that the accident in question has occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the auto rickshaw. The respondent no.2 has disputed the involvement of TVS XL (moped) vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA44U2884 in the accident and contended that due to self fall the petitioner has sustained injuries but not due to accident and that the insured vehicle is falsely implicated in order to get compensation in an unlawful means .
5. On the basis of the above pleadings the following issues are framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, he met with a Road Traffic Accident on 2403 2020 at about 0730 p.m., near Agarval Hotel, BengaluruTumakuru NH48 road, Dasanapura, Bengaluru and sustained grievous injuries due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of TVS XL Moped bearing Reg.No.KA44U2884?
2. Whether the petitioner proves that he is entitled to the compensation amount SCCH-24 5 MVC 4033/2020 claimed? If so from whom and to what extent?
3. What Order or Award?
6. In order to prove the above issues, petitioner got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P17 and closed his side. The respondent No.2 has examined its official as RW.1 and got marked 2 documents as Ex.R.1 and 2.
7. Heard arguments of learned counsel for petitioner and respondent No.2 and perused the entire materials placed on record.
8. My findings on the above issues are as follows:
Issue No.1: In the Negative Issue No.2: In the Negative. Issue No.3: As per final order, for the following;
REASONS
9. Issue No.1 : In order to explain the actionable negligence of the driver of offending vehicle, the PW1 has filed his affidavit explaining the vivid picture of the accident that took place on 23032020 at about 730 p.m., when petitioner in his passenger Auto bearing No.KA05AD2111 was proceeding towards his native place at Huraligere village, SCCH-24 6 MVC 4033/2020 Koratagere Taluk, Tumkur with his uncle named Narasimha Murthy and when they reached near Agraval Hotel, Bengaluru Tumakuru NH48 road, Dasanapura the said auto suddenly stopped, hence he got down from the auto and walked on the left side of the road to get the vehicle repaired and stood near the divider, at that time the driver of TVSXL (Moped) vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA 44U2884 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner, result of which the petitioner sustained grievous injuries . The P.W.1 further deposed about the nature of injuries sustained, treatment taken and the amount spent for treatment etc.
10. In support of the claim and to prove the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, the P.W.1 has relied upon Ex.P1 to Ex.P11, which are the police records such as F.I.R., FIS, charge sheet, spot mahazar, seizure mahazar, requisition to the RTO for inspection of the vehicles, wound certificate, bail bond of accused, voluntary statement of accused, statement of eye witness, order sheet in CC 2523/2020, etc.,
11. On the basis of the complaint lodged by Ravi Kumara N L, case has been registered against the driver of offending vehicle in Crime No 0132/2020 of SCCH-24 7 MVC 4033/2020 Nelamangala Traffic Police Station for the offence punishable under section 279, 337 of IPC and u/Sec.187 of MV Act. The Investigation officer after investigation has filed charge sheet against the driver of offending vehicle for the offence punishable under Section 279, 338 of IPC and u/Sec.187 of MV Act.
12. As observed supra, the learned counsel for respondent no.2 has seriously disputed the involvement of TVS XL (moped) vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA44U2884 (herein after called the offending vehicle ) in the accident and submitted that the petitioner who drove the auto rickshaw in rash and negligent manner, lost control of the vehicle and fell down and sustained injuries. It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel for respondent no.2 that even though the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident, in order to get compensation the petitioner inclusion with the owner and driver of the offending vehicle and also the police officials has falsely implicated the offending vehicle in the accident and thereby played fraud upon the court and insurance company, hence submitted to dismiss the petition.
13. The learned counsel for respondent no.2 at this juncture has referred the judgment reported in ILR SCCH-24 8 MVC 4033/2020 2015 Kar 401 between Mr.Vijay Vs. Shetty Vs. Mr.Sharada & Ors., In the said case, no evidence was placed to show that injured sustained injuries in the Road Traffic Accident and involvement of another vehicle , hence the said claim petition was dismissed as not maintainable".
14. In 1994 ACJ 1303 between Mataji Bews & Ors., Vs. Hemanta Kumar Jena & Anr., In the said case, the Tribunal relied upon the charge sheet in criminal case which showed that deceased was traveling in the truck and sustained fatal injuries and held that deceased was travelling in the truck and met with an accident and succumbed to injuries. Referring to the facts and evidence in the said case, it was observed that contents of charge sheet cannot be treated as an evidence in claim proceedings. The Tribunal must rely upon the evidence led before it.
15. In (2007) 13 SCC 476 between Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Premlata Shukla & Ors., It was held that "where part of a document have been relied on by both the parties , the claims Tribunal made rely on the same irrespective of whether the contents of the documents have proved or not .
SCCH-24 9 MVC 4033/202016. If the materials placed on record are perused, the accident in question has occurred on 24032020 at 0730 p.m. Complaint came to be lodged on 26032020 at 0230 p.m. Even though there is delay of 3 days in lodging the complaint but no explanation either in the complaint or in the FIR or in the charge sheet for the delay in lodging the complaint has been stated. As per the case of petitioner, at the time of accident his senior uncle by name Narasimhamurthy was in the autorickshaw. In the charge sheet said Narasimhamurthy was cited as an eye witness to the accident. Even though his senior uncle was present at the time of accident but very strangely he has not lodged the complaint. If petitioner really has sustained injuries due to RTA by involving another vehicle in the accident, soon after his got admitted at Nelamangala Government Hospital, MLC would have been registered and police intimation would have been send to the jurisdictional police station and the jurisdictional police would have visited the hospital and would have recorded the statement of petitioner. Even though respondent no 2 in tooth and nail has disputed the involvement of alleged offending vehicle in the accident but petitioner has not produced MLC register and police intimation to let the court know whether MLC was SCCH-24 10 MVC 4033/2020 registered and police intimation was sent to the jurisdictional PS and if MLC is registered whether the involvement of offending vehicle is mentioned in the MLC and police intimation. When respondent no.2 has seriously disputed the involvement of offending vehicle in the accident and disputed the manner of accident and categorically stated that petitioner has sustained injuries due to self fall, under such circumstances the petitioner ought to have produced the MLC register and police intimation either of Government Hospital, Nelamangala or of Gayathri Hospital wherein he has taken treatment as inpatient for a period of 2 days. It is further relevant to state here that the petitioner even has not taken any steps to examine the eye witness to the accident even though there is serious dispute raised regarding the involvement of offending vehicle in the accident. It is further relevant to state here that though petitioner has produced the spot mahazar but for the reason best known to him he has not produced the eye sketch. If spot mahazar at Ex.P4 is perused, nowhere it is stated the exact spot at which accident in question has occurred and the place at which the alleged offending vehicle was laying soon after the alleged accident to let the court know as to who has contributed negligence if really the alleged offending vehicle was involved in the accident. Ex.P4 does SCCH-24 11 MVC 4033/2020 not reveal anything about the rash and negligent act contributed by the alleged offending vehicle. Had the petitioner produce the rough eye sketch it would have given some idea about the topography of the scene of occurrence. The petitioner even has not produced IMV report to let the court know whether the alleged offending vehicle has sustained any damages and to know the description of the said vehicle,. Though the petitioner has produced the seizure mahazar at Ex.P5 regarding seizure of the alleged offending vehicle and though there is mention in the ExP5 about the scratch mark found in the alleged offending vehicle and though there is mention in the ExP5 that the said vehicle was seized for IMV inspection, but for the reason best known to the petitioner he has not produced the IMV report. Hence, there is no material whether the alleged offending vehicle was subject to IMV inspection or not.
17. As per the case of the petitioner, the respondent no.1 is the owner of the alleged offending vehicle and one Shivaraj N.R is the driver of said vehicle. If really the alleged offending vehicle was involved in the accident, then the investigating officer could have issued notice to the owner of the alleged offending vehicle u/Sec.133 of MV Act asking information about the SCCH-24 12 MVC 4033/2020 documents pertaining to the offending vehicle and the particulars of the driver of the said vehicle because the alleged offending vehicle was seized in the month of June 2020 i.e after lapse of nearly 3 months from the date of accident. The petitioner in his complaint which was lodged after two days of the accident has mentioned the registration number of the alleged offending vehicle. Under such circumstances the investigation officer in all these period of three months from the date of accident till the date of seizure of the said vehicle could have given notice to the owner to produce the said vehicle before the police station. The petitioner has not produced either the copy of notice issued to the owner u/Sec.133 MV Act or reply given by the respondent no.1. The charge sheet does not disclose the notice u/Sec.133 MV Act issued to the respondent no.1. If really notice u/Sec.133 MV Act was issued then the owner of the alleged offending vehicle would have been cited as charge sheet witness. But in the list of witness in the charge sheet the respondent no.1 has not been cited.
18. If the medical documents more particularly the wound certificate at Ex.P7 and discharge summary at Ex.P.12 is perused, except stating that history of injury as "RTA near Nelamangala opposite Government Hospital on SCCH-24 13 MVC 4033/2020 24032020 at 0800 p.m"., nowhere has mentioned the involvement of two wheeler in the accident leaving apart of the registration number of the alleged offending vehicle . Merely because the word "RTA" is mentioned it does not mean that another vehicle is involved in the accident. If any person falls from his own vehicle in the public road then also the hospital authorities will mention the word "RTA" in the medical records. The petitioner has not produced any iota of document to prove the involvement of alleged offending vehicle in the accident. When petitioner has filed petition under section 166 of MV Act he has to prove the involvement of offending vehicle and also rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver / rider of the offending vehicle . It is only if petition is filed under section 163(A) MV Act ( Now 164) under no fault liability there is no need to prove the rash and negligent aspect . Mere involvement of vehicle is sufficient .
19. In 2010 (2) T.A.C 194 (Kerala) between Rajan Vs. P.N Raghavan & Ors., It was held that "A judgment of a Criminal Court is not binding on the Tribunal to decide question of negligence. Even scene of occurrence became a doubtful factor. In this background one has to find out whether there is sufficient evidence to prove negligence of first respondent. No evidence to establish negligence of SCCH-24 14 MVC 4033/2020 driver. Being a case under Section 166 and as negligence not proved, claim application dismissed.".
20. In ILR 2021 KAR 3657 between The Divisional Manager, M/s. The Oriental Insurance company Limited, Udupi Vs. Rayan Fernandes & anr., wherein it was held that " (a). It is trite proposition of law that the Tribunals are required to take a holistic view while assessing the Police records relating to the registration of the crime in motor accident cases. But, however, when Insurance Company comes up with a definite case that there is a fraudulent claim, in which cases, the Tribunal is required to be cautious in accepting the Police records. The Tribunal generally places reliance on the FIR, spot sketch and charge sheet in all cases when there is no serious dispute by the Insurance Company.
b) Though the Court is not examining the correctness of the charge sheet, but this Court has to take judicial note of the conduct of the Investigating Officers who are investigating the road traffic accident cases. The Charge sheet submitted cannot be accepted as a gospel truth in all the cases. In recent years, it has became rampant where investigating Officer in connivance with the claimant and also the owner of the vehicle involved in SCCH-24 15 MVC 4033/2020 the accident are distorting facts to suit their purpose and accordingly to enable them to claim compensation".
21. Hence merely because the investigation officer has filed charge sheet against the driver of the alleged offending vehicle, this court cannot go by with the said document to arrive at conclusion of the involvement of alleged offending in the accident. It has to decide the issues independently based on the materials placed on record.
22. Now the very fact that except the delayed complaint, spot mahazar and seizure mahazar and charge sheet in none of the documents including the medical documents the registration number of the alleged offending vehicle is mentioned. Further the petitioner has not produced rough eye sketch, notice u/Sec.133 of IMV Act, reply given to the said notice and the IMV report. The petitioner has not examined the investigating officer. Even there is serious dispute regarding the involvement of offending vehicle in the accident but petitioner even has not examined any of the eye witness to the alleged accident. He has not produced MLC register. Hence, leaving apart of proving the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of alleged offending vehicle, the SCCH-24 16 MVC 4033/2020 petitioner has failed to prove the very involvement of offending vehicle in the accident. In view of the discussion made herein above, issue no.1 is answered in the negative.
23. Issue No.2 : As petitioner has failed to prove the very involvement of offending vehicle in the accident the question of discussing issue no.2 does not arise. Hence, issue no.2 is also answered in the negative.
24. Issue No.3: In the light of findings given on Issue No.1 and 2, my finding on this issue is as per the following final order.
ORDER The claim petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed.
Advocates' fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court, on this the 3rd day of June 2024.) (ROOPASHRI) XXII Addl. SCJ & ACMM Bengaluru.
SCCH-24 17 MVC 4033/2020ANNEXURE List of witness examined on behalf of petitioner: Pw1 Mr.Ravi Kumar H L List of documents marked on behalf of petitioner: Ex.P1 Certified copy of FIR (two in nos) Ex.P2 Certified copy of FIS ( two in nos) Ex.P3 Certified copy of Charge sheet Ex.P4 Certified copy of Spot mahazar Ex.P5 Certified copy of Seizure Mahazar Ex.P6 Certified copy of Requisition to the RTO for inspecting the vehicles.
Ex. P7 Certified copy of Wound certificate Ex.P8 Certified copy of Bail bond of accused Ex.P9 Certified copy of voluntary statement of accused Ex.P10 Certified copy of Statement of eye witness Ex.P11 Certified copy of Ordersheet in CC 2523/2020( two pages) Ex.P.12 Discharge summary issued by Gayathri Hospital (one page) Ex.P.13 One CTBrain report, one laboratory investigation report and one radiology report (three pages) Ex.P.14 15 medical bills for Rs.14,271/ SCCH-24 18 MVC 4033/2020 Ex.P.15 Notarized copy of Aadhar card of petitioner (compared with original and same is returned) Ex.P16 11 medical bills for Rs.38,550/ Ex.P17 NC of RC standing in the name of Yogesh M K. (compared with original and same is returned to the party) List of witness examined on behalf of respondents: RW.1 N.G.Prashanth List of documents marked on behalf of respondents: Ex.R.1 Authorization Letter dated 20022024 Ex.R.2 Copy of Policy XXII Addl. SCJ & ACMM Bengaluru.
Digitally signed by ROOPASHRI ROOPASHRI Date:
2024.06.03 16:28:25 +0530