Bangalore District Court
P.R.Obul Reddy vs Sireesha A on 29 August, 2024
KABC020215632020
BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES &, MEMBER PRL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU
(S.C.C.H. - 1)
Dated this the 29th day of August, 2023
PRESENT : SRI J.N.SUBRAMANYA, B.A., L.L.M.,
MEMBER, PRL. M.A.C.T.
M.V.C. No. 4468/2020
Petitioner: Sri P.R.Obul Reddy,
S/o. Late P. Rami Reddy,
Aged about 64 years,
R/at Mundaramdoddi village,
V.Kota Mandalam,
Chittor district,
A.P.State.
(By Sri C.J.Prabhakar, Advocate)
-Vs-
Respondents: 1. Sri Sireesha A.,
W/o. A.P.Yogesh,
Age:Major,
R/at M.Satram village,
K.Patnam Post,
Thavanapalli Mandalam,
Chittor district,
A.P. State-517 011.
(By Sri D.Nagegowda , Advocate)
SCCH-1 2 MVC No.4468/2020
2. The New India Assurance Co,Ltd.,
CDV-3, Mahalakshmi Chambers,
No.9, M.G.Road,
Bangalore -560 025.
(Policy No.61270131150100000520
valid from 21.05.2019 to 20.05.2020)
Represented by its Branch Manager.
(Represented by Smt. K. Usha ,
Advocate)
JUDGMENT
Petitioner asserting to be an injured suffered in a RTA filed petition under Section 166 of M.V.Act claiming compensation worth of Rs.25,00,000/- from the respondents, who are the owner and insurer of lorry bearing No.AP-03-TK-2090 asserting that on 05.03.2020 at 12.00 noon when riding motorcycle bearing No.AP-39-CJ- 7710 on V.Kota towards Palamaner cross, driver of lorry bearing No.AP-03-TK-2090 drove the same negligently, dashed the same to the motorcycle, thereby caused accident, caused injuries to the petitioner.
2. Petitioner took treatment at V.Kota Government hospital, PES hospital Kuppam, Sparsh hospital , Bengaluru by spending Rs.20 lakhs. As on the date of SCCH-1 3 MVC No.4468/2020 accident , petitioner being aged 64 years, used to earn Rs.50,000/p.m . by doing agriculture. Regarding accident V.Kota police registered a case.
3. In response to the notice, respondents No.1 and 2 appeared through their respective Advocates, filed written statement separately, denying the allegation regarding reason, mode of accident, age, occupation, income, nature and consequence of the injuries suffered by the petitioner. In the written statement respondent No.2 insurance company denied the liability to pay compensation on the ground that cheque issued by the respondent No.1 towards premium of the policy was bounced , therefore, policy issued to respondent No.1 with respect to the lorry bearing No.AP-03-TK-2090 was cancelled.
4. On the basis of the pleadings on 09.12.2021, this Authority has framed the following issues:
1. Whether the petitioner proves that due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing reg. No.AP-03-TK-
2090 by its driver dashed to the petitioner who was proceeding as pillion rider in the motorcycle bearing reg. No.AP-39-CJ-7710 and he sustained injuries in the accident that occurred on 05.03.2020?
SCCH-1 4 MVC No.4468/2020
2. Whether the respondent No.1 proves that the accident has occurred due to the negligent act on the part of the rider of motorcycle ?
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation ? If so, what is the quantum of compensation and from whom?
4. What order?
5. On 16.03.2022, 20.04.2022, 06.07.2022 petitioner deposed as PW1 and produced 9 documents at Ex.P.1 to P.8 and P.2(a). On 11.10.2022,14.02.2023 petitioner produced the evidence of Dr.Nagaraju as PW2 and produced 8 documents at Ex.P.9 to P.16. On 19.04.2023, 05.06.2023, respondent No.2 insurance company produced the evidence of Administrative Officer as RW1 and produced 9 documents at Ex.R.1 to R.9.
6. Learned Advocate appearing for the respondent No.2 insurance company filed notes of arguments and copy of four judgments, IRDA Regulation, Section 64 VB of Insurance Act, 1938.
7. I heard the arguments submitted on behalf of petitioner and respondent No.2 and perused the records.
8. On the basis of material on record, my findings on the above issues are as under:
SCCH-1 5 MVC No.4468/2020
Issue No.1 ... In the affirmative
Issue No.2 ... In the Negative
Issue No.3 ... Petitioner is entitled to Rs.23,40,000/-
with current and future interest at 6% p.a from the respondent No.1 as compensation.
Issue No.4 ... As per final order
for the following:-
REASONS
9. Issues No.1 and 2 :- In the evidence petitioner
stated that on 05.03.2020 at 12.00 noon when riding
motorcycle bearing No.AP-39-CJ-7710 from Telugudesham party Praja Chaithanya Yatra to reach V.Kota, on V.Kota - Palamaner road, near Khajipeta Urdu school , driver of lorry bearing No.AP-03-TK-2090 drove the same negligently, dashed the same to the motorcycle, thereby caused accident, caused injuries to the petitioner.
10. In the written statement respondents No.1 and 2 denied the allegation regarding reason and mode of the accident.
11. In the cross-examination PW1 stated that prior to the accident himself and Basha by riding the two wheeler proceeding from V.Kota towards Palamaner lorry was proceeding from Palamaner towards V.Kota and during the SCCH-1 6 MVC No.4468/2020 accident himself and another rider of the motorcycle taking turn towards Khajipete which is situated towards the right side of the road from VoKota to Palamaner road.
12. PW1 admitted that during the accident motorcycle was crossing the road and in the place of accident there was no signal. PW1 denied that suggestion that without observing the vehicles running from Palamaner, the rider of the motorcycle suddenly turned the motorcycle towards Khajipete, thereby became the reason for the accident. PW1 denied the suggestion that due to the negligent act on the part of the rider of the rider of the motorcycle accident taken place and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry.
13. In the evidence of PW2 Dr.Nagaraju stated nothing regarding reason and mode of accident.
14. In the evidence affidavit RW1 , the Administrative Officer of the respondent No.2 insurance company stated nothing regarding reason and mode of accident .
15. Ex.P.1, P.2 and P.2(a) are the copy of FIR, complaint , English translation copy of the complaint pertaining to crime No.39/2020 registered by V.Kota police SCCH-1 7 MVC No.4468/2020 for the offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC against the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-03-TK-2090 for having committed the offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC regarding accident taken place on 05.03.2020 between lorry bearing No.AP-03-TK-2090 and motorcycle resulting in the injuries to the petitioner and another rider of the motorcycle on the basis of the complaint presented by P.R.Munireddy, S/o. Late P.Ramireddy. Enclosure of Ex.P.2 is the copy of the sketch of the place of accident in which it is noted that in the junction of two roads accident taken place.
16. Ex.P.3 is the copy of the chargesheet filed by P.S.I. , V.Kota police station in crime No.39/2020 against S. Mowlali, S/o. S.Murashah, driver of lorry bearing No.AP- 03-TK-2090 for having committed the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC. Enclosure of the chargesheet is the copy of wound certificate.
17. In this case, there are no reasons to disbelieve the evidence placed by the petitioner regarding reason and mode of accident. Hence, I have concluded that on 05.03.2020 at 12.00 noon when petitioner riding SCCH-1 8 MVC No.4468/2020 motorcycle bearing No.AP-39-CJ-7710 on V.Kota towards Palamaner road near Khajipete Urdu High School, S. Mowlali, S/o. S.Murashah, negligently drove the lorry bearing No.AP-03-TK-2090 dashed the same to the motorcycle, thereby caused the accident, caused injuries to the petitioner. Hence, I answer issue No.1 in the affirmative and issue No.2 in the negative.
18. Issue No.3: In the evidence, petitioner stated that in the accident he has suffered bilateral crush injury to both legs, right leg both bone fracture type III B, left femur fracture, left calcaneum fracture, right anterior and superior infra pubic ramus fracture , right acetabulum fracture , took treatment at Government hospital, V.Kota, then took treatment at PES hospital, Kuppam, then took treatment at Sparsh hospital , Bengaluru as an inpatient , underwent surgery by spending Rs. 15,71,174/- in which Rs.3,42,160/- has been paid by the insurance company. Petitioner stated that in view of the injuries suffered in the accident suffered permanent disability at 90%. SCCH-1 9 MVC No.4468/2020
19. In the written statement respondents No.1 and 2 denied the allegation regarding nature and consequence of the injuries suffered by the petitioner. In the cross- examination PW1 denied the suggestion that in the accident he has not suffered any injuries as noted in the evidence affidavit.
20. In the evidence affidavit PW2 Dr.Nagaraju stated that on 11.09.2022 when clinically examined the petitioner noticed that the petitioner suffered permanent physical disability to right lower limb at 66% , left lower limb at 55% , to whole body at 26% and produced case sheets. X- ray , clinical notes at Ex.P.9 to 16
21. In the cross-examination PW2 stated that he is one of the team member which treated the petitioner and conducted one surgery to the petitioner.
22. In the evidence RW1 stated nothing regarding nature and consequence of the injuries suffered by the petitioner.
23. Deposition shows that on 16.03.2022 , 20.04.2022, 06.07.2022, petitioner came to Court hall by sitting on a wheel chair with the help of a person. SCCH-1 10 MVC No.4468/2020
24. Wound certificate, discharge summaries, medical reports, prescriptions, shows that in the accident petitioner suffered bilateral lower limb crush injury, right leg both bone fracture type III B, left femur shaft fracture , left calcaneium fracture type III B, right superior and inferior rami fracture, right anterior column fracture undisplaced, took treatment at V.Kota Government hospital, PES hospital, Kuppam, Sparsh hospital, Bengaluru as an inpatient from 05.03.2020 to 18.03.2020, 07.04.2021 to 08.04.2021, 21.01.2022 to 24.06.2022, 04.02.2022 to 05.02.2022 , underwent surgery. The medical bills and oral evidence of the petitioner shows that he has spent Rs.15,71,174/- towards treatment in which insurance company paid Rs.3,42,160/-.
25. In the file there are no documentary evidence regarding quantum of income of the petitioner. In the medical records age of the petitioner is noted as 64/65 years. Hence, Rs.2,00,000/- towards pain and sufferings, Rs.12,29,000/- towards surplus medical expenses, , Rs.1,00,000/- towards attendant , conveyance and nourishment charges, Rs.3,92,000/- towards loss of SCCH-1 11 MVC No.4468/2020 income during treatment period (Rs.14,000x28), Rs.1,25,000/- towards loss of amenities and future unhappiness, Rs.2,94,000/- is awarded towards loss of future income due to permanent disability by making the calculation in the following terms:
Age of the petitioner as on the date of 64/65 years accident Notional income of the petitioner as on the - Rs.14,000/- date of accident Permanent functional disability suffered by Rs.3,500/- the petitioner 25% Multiplier Applicable 7 Loss of future income due to permanent Rs.2,94,000 disability 3500x12x7
26. Therefore, I came to the conclusion that petitioner is entitle of Rs.23,40,000/- with current and future interest at 6% p.a. from the respondents as compensation.
27. In the lengthy argument learned Advocate appearing for the insurance company submitted that as due to the bouncing of the cheque marked at Ex.R.2, respondent No.2 insurance company cancelled policy marked at Ex.R.8 and issued notice about the bouncing of the cheque to respondent No.1, the insurance company is SCCH-1 12 MVC No.4468/2020 not liable to indemnify the respondent No.1 by relying on the following judgments:
1. MFA No.6592/2012 c/w MFA No.6594/2012, M.F.A.No.1108220/2012, M.F.A.No.11083/2012 ( TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. G.Srinath and others) D.D. 03.11.2023
2. M.F.A.No.1974/2015 C/w MFA No.1975/2015, M.F.A. No.6255/2014, M.F.A No.6256/2014 (Gowramma and others Vs. Asham and others) D.D.07.12.2023
3. 1997 0 Supreme (AP) 1131 (New India Assurance Company Ltd., Manager, Visakhapatnam aVs. Kotana Appanna ) D.D.11.13.1997
4. 1998 1 ALD 394; 1997 6 ALT 540 : 1998 1 LS 210 (New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Manager, Vishakapatnam Vs. Kotanna Appanna ) D.D.13.11.1997
28. In the written statement respondent No.2 and in the evidence RW1 , Officer of the insurance company stated that in view of the bouncing of the cheque issued by respondent No.1 towards premium of the policy, the policy has been cancelled, therefore, as on the date of accident , SCCH-1 13 MVC No.4468/2020 the respondent No.2 is not the insurer of the lorry bearing No.AP-03-TK-2090 and produced cheque dated 20.05.2019, copy of cheque return memo , copy of letter dated 23.05.2019 sent to RTO, postal receipt, and copy of policy at Ex.R.2 to R.9.
29. In the cross-examination RW1 submitted ignorance to the question that whether insured has taken the policy by approaching the company directly or through agent. RW1 stated that in the policy marked at Ex.R.8 it is stated that insured has taken the policy through agent. RW1 submitted ignorance to the question that whether the insured has paid the premium through cash or agent. RW1 denied the suggestion that in Ex.R.9 it is noted as business type in cash. RW1 denied the suggestion that endorsement issued by the bank is in respect of different lorry and not the insured lorry. Ex.R.2 is the cheque dated 20.05.2019 issued by Sreesha in favour of respondent No.2 for Rs.58,150/-. Ex.R.3 is the memo dated 22.05.2019 issued by HDFC Bank Ltd., Chittor intimating the bouncing of the cheque marked at Ex.R.2. Ex.R.3 is the copy of the statement about bouncing of the cheque . SCCH-1 14 MVC No.4468/2020 Ex.R.4 is the copy of letter dated 23.05.2019 issued to Shreesha by respondent No.2 intimating the bouncing of the cheque marked at Ex.R.2 issued for Rs.58,150/- towards premium of the policy for lorry bearing No.AP-03- TK-2090 .
30. Ex.R.5 is the RPAD receipt dated 24,05.2019. Ex.R.1 is the letter issued by respondent No.2 insurance company to the RTO, Chittor intimating the cancellation of the policy with respect to lorry bearing No.AP-03-TK-2090 in view of bouncing of the cheque by Sreesha A., W/o. A.P.Yogish. Ex.R.7 is the postal receipt dated 24.05.2019 bearing address, Regional R.T.A. , Chittor, Ex.R.8 is the copy of the policy with respect to the lorry bearing No.AP- 03-TK-2090 for the period from 21.05.2019 to 20.05.2020 issued in the name of Sreesha A., W/o. A.P.Yogish. Ex.P.9 is the policy details.
31. In this case respondent NO.1 Shreesha A., insured/owner of the lorry bearing No.AP-03-TK-2090 has not produced any type of evidence to disbelieve the evidence placed by respondent No.2 insurance company regarding cancellation of policy marked at Ex.R.8 due to SCCH-1 15 MVC No.4468/2020 bouncing of cheque marked at Ex.R.2. Hence, judgments stated by the insurance company are directly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, I came to the conclusion that respondent No.2 insurance company is not liable to indemnify the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.1 alone has to pay compensation to the petitioner. Hence, I answer issue No.3 accordingly and pass the following :
ORDER The petition filed under Section 166 of IMV Act is partly allowed against respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 owner of lorry bearing No.AP-03- TK-2090 shall pay Rs.23,40,000/- with current and future interest at 6% p.a., to petitioner towards compensation.
The respondent No.1, owner of lorry bearing No.AP-03- TK-2090 shall deposit the compensation amount with interest within 3 months from today.
After deposit of the compensation amount, entire compensation amount and interest may be released to the SCCH-1 16 MVC No.4468/2020 petitioner by crediting the same to his bank account directly.
The petition filed under Section 166 of IMV Act is dismissed against respondent No.2 insurance company.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- . Draw an Award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 29th day of August , 2024) (J.N.SUBRAMANYA) Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes & Member, Prl. M.A.C.T. Bangalore.
ANNEXURES Witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioners:
P.W.1 : P.R.Obul Reddy dt. 16.03.2022, 20.04.2022, 06.07.2022 P.W.2 : Dr.Nagaraju dt. 11.10.2022, 14.02.2023 Documents marked on behalf of the petitioners:
Ex.P.1 Certified copy of FIR
Ex.P.2 Certified copy of complaint
Ex.P.2(a) Translation copy of Ex.P.2
Ex.P.3 Certified copy of chargesheet
SCCH-1 17 MVC No.4468/2020
Ex.P.4 Certified copy of wound certificate
Ex.P.5 Discharge summaries of Sparsh
hospital (8)
Ex.P.6 306 hospital bills , 307 to 319
ambulance and vehicle charges bills
Ex.P.7 Prescriptions (59)
Ex.P.8 Lab reports (10)
Ex.P.9 to 14 Case sheet records (6)
Ex.P.15 X-ray film
Ex.P.16 Clinical notes
Witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents :
RW-1 : Jagadeshwari L.M. dt.19.04.2023 , 05.06.2023 Documents marked on behalf of the respondents:
Ex.R.1 Authorization letter dt. 19.04.2023 Ex.R.2 Cheque dated 20.05.2019 Ex.R.3 Return statement issued by HDFC bank Ex.R.4 Office copy of the letter dated 23.05.2019 issued by R1 Ex.R.5 Postal receipt Ex.R.6 Office copy of the letter dated 23.05.2019 written to RTO Ex.R.7 Postal receipt Ex.R.8 Copy of insurance policy pertaining to lorry bearing No.AP-03-TK-2090 Ex.P.9 Policy Quote details (J.N.SUBRAMANYA) Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes & Member, Prl. M.A.C.T. Bangalore.