Bangalore District Court
Vishwas J.B vs Sanjay Channabasayya Beedimath on 1 April, 2025
KABC020192922023
IN THE COURT OF III ADDL.JUDGE AND MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES BENGALURU
(SCCH-18)
Dated: this the 1st day of April 2025
PRESENT: DHANESH MUGALI
B.Com., LL.B.,(Spl.)
III ADDL. JUDGE & MEMBER MACT
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU.
M.V.C. No.4372/2023
Petitioner : Shri Vishwas J.B.,
S/o Basavaraju
Aged about 34 years,
Residing at 3rd block,
Jangamakote,
Chikkaballapur -562 102.
(By Pleader Sri.M.Shivarama)
V/s
Respondents: 1. Sanjay Channabasayya
Beedimath,
S/o Channabasayya,
No.1140, Guruwarpete,
Kittur S.O.
Belgaum - 591 115.
SCCH-18 2 MVC 4372/2023
(Exparte)
2. Cholamandalam MS General
Insurance Co. Ltd., Unit -IV,
9th floor, (Level-06),
Golden Heights Complex,
59th "C" cross,
Industrial Suburb,
Rajajinagar 4th "M" block,
Bengaluru-560 010.
(By Pleader Sri.M.Mahesh
Prasad)
JUDGMENT
The petitioner filed this petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident.
The brief facts of the petitioner's case are as under:
2. That on 30.1.2023 at about 4.30 p.m. the petitioner was proceeding in a scooter bearing registration No.KA-03-KJ-0927 as a pillion rider, which was ridden by one Rochan, on Mysore road, when they reached near Hosaguddadahalli junction, Bengaluru city, at that time, driver of the Canter Lorry bearing registration No.KA-22-D-7010 drove SCCH-18 3 MVC 4372/2023 the same in a rash and negligent manner from K.R.Market towards BHEL and dashed against the petitioner's vehicle from behind and caused the accident. Due to the forced impact, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries.
3. It is further stated that, immediately the petitioner was shifted to S.K.Hospital, Jnanabharati road, Nagarabhavi Circle, Bangalore, wherein he took treatment as an inpatient by spending a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards medicine, conveyance etc.,
4. It is stated that, prior to the accident the petitioner was hale, healthy and was doing Real estate business and was earning Rs.30,000/- p.m. after the accident he could not able to work as earlier.
5. It is stated that, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Canter Lorry bearing registration No.KA-22-D-7010.
Hence, the jurisdictional Byatarayanapura Traffic Police have filed charge sheet against driver of said vehicle in Cr.No.30/2023. As such, the respondents SCCH-18 4 MVC 4372/2023 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Hence, this petition.
6. In response to the notices, the respondent No.1 did not appear before the court, remained absent, hence placed exparte. The respondent No.2 appeared through its counsel and filed the written statement.
7. In the written statement of the respondent No.2 contended that the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The respondent had admitted about issuance of insurance policy in respect of Canter Lorry bearing registration No.KA- 22-D-7010. Further contended that offending vehicle was not at all involved in this accident and falsely implicated the same in the alleged accident. It is also contention of the respondent that, the accident occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the petitioner himself, hence, the respondent No.2 is not liable to pay the compensation. Further it is contended that, the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident. Further denied the age, avocation and income of the petitioner. Ultimately SCCH-18 5 MVC 4372/2023 stated that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive, exaggerated and arbitrary. With all these main grounds, prayed to dismiss the petition with cost.
8. On the basis of rival pleadings of both the parties, this court has framed the following issues;
ISSUES
1) Whether the petitioner proves that he had sustained grievous injuries in a motor vehicle accident which was taken place on 30.1.2023 at about 4.30 p.m. near Hosaguddadahalli junction, on Mysore road, Bangalore city, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Canter Lorry bearing registration No.KA-22-D-7010 in an actionable negligence?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, at what rate and from whom?
3. What order or award?
9. In order to substantiate his case, the petitioner examined himself as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P13.
SCCH-18 6 MVC 4372/202310. On the other hand, the respondent No.2 has examined CMD of S.K. Hospital as RW1 and got marked the document as Ex.R1. Further examined Assistant Manager of the insurance company as RW2 and got marked the document at Ex.R2 & ex.R3.
11. Heard the arguments of both the counsel and perused the materials available on record.
12. At the time of argument the counsel for the petitioner has relied the decision reported in 1987 ACJ 496 between Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Jhami Bai & Others
13. On going through the supra decision, the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan by Jaipur Bench has awarded at the rate of 12% p.a. on the award amount from the date of application till realisation.
14. My answer to the aforesaid issues are as follows:
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative. Issue No.2: Partly in the Affirmative. Issue No.3: As per final order, for the following:SCCH-18 7 MVC 4372/2023
R E A S O N S ISSUE NO.1:-
15. It is the specific case of the petitioner that due to the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of Lorry bearing registration No.KA-22-D- 7010, the alleged accident had taken place, consequently he had sustained grievous injuries.
16. On the other hand, though the respondent No.2 being the insurance company contended that alleged accident occured due to the self fall from the scooter. Hence, Lorry bearing No.KA-22-D-7010 was not at all involved in the accident.
17.On the basis of rival contention of both the parties, first of all, the petitioners have to place satisfactory evidence on the touch stone of preponderance of probabilities against the driver of the offending vehicle in question.
18. The petitioner in order to prove his case, examined himself as PW1. In his examination-in- chief by way of affidavit has reiterated the averments made in the petition. The petitioner in support of his oral evidence has relied upon Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. Ex.P1- SCCH-18 8 MVC 4372/2023 true copy of the F.I.R., Ex.P2-true copy of first information statement, Ex.P3-true copy of the spot mahazar. Ex.P4-true copy of spot sketch, Ex.P5-true copy notice u/s 133 of MV Act, Ex.P6- true copy of reply to notice u/s 133 of MV Act, Ex.P7-true copy of wound certificate, Ex.P8-true copy of wound certificate, Ex.P9-true copy of charge sheet filed against the driver of the Lorry under section 279 & 337 of IPC and Section 134(A & B) R/w Section 187 of IMV Act.
19. On perusal of the police documents, it could be seen that, based upon the first information statement given by the petitioner, the S.H.O. of Byatarayanapura Traffic Police, Bengaluru has registered the case against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offences punishable under Sections 279 & 337 of IPC and 134(A & B) of IMV Act. Based upon investigation, the I.O. has filed charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle alleging that he has committed the offences punishable under section 279 & 337 of IPC and 134(A & B) of IMV Act.
SCCH-18 9 MVC 4372/202320. In order to substantiate the defence of the respondent has examined CMD, S.K.Hospital, Bengaluru as RW1. He has placed MLC as per Ex.R1. He has deposed in his evidence that on 30.1.2023 the petitioner along with his wife came to the hospital and stated that he himself fell from his bike, due to which he sustained injuries, hence, MLC was registered. Next day on 1.2.2023 at about 12.30 p.m. petitioner came to their hospital and stated that back side wheel of the canter bearing No.KA-22-D- 7010 ran over his foot and sustained injuries. Hence, Ex.R1 can be considered as MLC. In the cross- examination stated that duty doctor was written the Ex.R1. Further suggested that status of the petitioner has not mentioned in Ex.R1, for which he has stated that petitioner was conscious, hence, not written.
21. Further the respondent No.2 has examined Assistant Manager by name Kruthishree N. as RW2. She has deposed that there is delay of one day in lodging the complaint. No valid reasons assigned for the inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. Further deposed that as per MLC RTA 30/1/2023 SCCH-18 10 MVC 4372/2023 around 5.45 p.m. saying H/o skid and self fall from two wheeler' it would clearly show that the driver of the Lorry bearing No.KA-2-D-7010 was not at all involved in the accident. He has placed authorisation letter & policy as per Ex.R2 & Ex.R3. In the cross- examination denied that accident occurred in the evening 4.30 to 5.00 p.m. hence, complaint was lodged on the next day. Further denied the suggestion that after having investigation only, the policy have filed the charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle.
22. PW1 was subjected for cross-examination at length, but no material answers culled out to believe the defenses of the respondent No.2 about the denial of allegation made against the driver of the offending vehicle.
23. At the time of argument the counsel for the respondent No.2 has relied the following decisions;
1) SLP 32138/2018 New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Velu & Another
24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that merely because of the FIR has been delayed SCCH-18 11 MVC 4372/2023 the claim cannot be rejected. If considering that, all the available evidences points out towards a skid and fall and not a motor accident, then claim can be rejected.
2) MFA No.4407/2020 C/w 4081/2021 between Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Kavitha & Others
25. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that the Courts have the responsibility to analyze the evidence on record cautiously and holistically.
3) MFA 8633/2019 C/W 1160/2019 between Shri Nagarajappa Vs. Smt.Neelamma & Others
26. The charge sheet or the alleged rider pleading guilty is not conclusive proof and the court has to evaluate the entire evidence on record in an integrated manner.
27. On the other hand the counsel for the petitioner has relied the following decisions;
1) AIR 1980 SC 1354 between N.K.V. Bros (P) Ltd., Vs. M.Karumai Ammal & Others SCCH-18 12 MVC 4372/2023
28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that the accident Tribunals must take special care to see that innocent victim do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here or some obscurity there. Save in plain cases, culpability must be inferred from the circumstances where it is fairly reasonable. The court should not succumbed to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes.
2) 1993 ACJ 130 between Rajasthan State Road Transport Vs. Kiran Latha & Others
29. The court should be very liberal in applying and interpreting the law for the benefit of the victims of the accident.
30. In the instant case, on going through the complaint marked at Ex.P2 filed by the petitioner on 1.2.2023. There is delay of 1 day in filing the complaint. At this stage, on the point of delay, it is necessary to note down the decision reported in (2011) 4 SCC Page 693, between, Ravi V/S. Badrinarayan, "It was observed that, "delay in lodging F.I.R cannot be a ground to doubt the SCCH-18 13 MVC 4372/2023 claimant's case. Knowing that the Indian conditions as they are, we cannot expect a common man to first rush to the police station immediately, after the accident. As the family members give more importance to get the victim treated rather than to rush to the police station. Under such circumstances, they are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging the F.I.R with the police."
31. On going through the complaint there is a clear mention about the reasons for the delay in lodging the complaint. The delay in lodging the FIR is not a ground to doubt the claim petition.
32. Further on perusal of mahazar, sketch and charge sheet clearly reveals that Lorry bearing registration No.KA-22-D-7010 was involved in the accident. More over, the respondent No.2 has not examined the author of Ex.R1 to give clear picture about the stage of the petitioner at the time of writing of Ex.R1-MLC. Added to this, the respondent No.2, has not contended that the respondent No.1 and the petitioner have been colluded and involved the lorry in this case for securing compensation. By considering all the facts and circumstances, the SCCH-18 14 MVC 4372/2023 tribunal should be liberal in law for the benefit of the victims of the accident.
33. With due respect, the decisions relied by the respondent No.2 is not aptly applicable to the facts of this case.
34. In the light of the evidence placed on record, it is crystal clear that, the alleged accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry bearing registration No.KA-22- D-7010. Hence, I am answering the issue No.1, in the Affirmative.
ISSUE No.2:
35. This issue is with respect to the entitlement of reliefs claimed by the petitioner. The petitioner through this petition, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident under different heads.
36. Before appreciation of the evidence placed by the petitioner about the injuries sustained by him, in the accident and its consequences, it is apt to note herein, the preposition laid down in the SCCH-18 15 MVC 4372/2023 following land mark judgment, while appreciating the injury cases in Motor Vehicle Act.
Civil Appeal No.8981/2010 D.D. 18.10.2010 Rajkumar V/s Ajay Kumar & Another of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
"In the aforesaid case, it was held that, the court has to make judicious attempt to award compensation to the loss suffered by the claimant. The compensation should not be assessed conservatively. On the other hand, compensation should also not be endeavouring to secure some uniformity and consistency. The object of awarding compensation is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done, as far as money can do so, in a fair reasonable and equitable manner." "while determining quantum of compensation, in such cases, the court has to strike a balance between the inflated and unreasonable demands of a victim and the equally untenable claim of the opposite party saying that nothing is payable. That sympathy for the victim does not, and should not, comes in the way of making a correct assessment. But if a case is made out, and the court must not be chary of awarding adequate compensation. "
Pain and Sufferings;
37. PW1 has stated in his evidence that, he has sustained the injuries in a road traffic accident. In connection with the injuries he has produced wound SCCH-18 16 MVC 4372/2023 certificate marked as Ex.P8. The said document discloses that, he had sustained the following injuries:-
Fracture of 2nd 3rd and 4th metatarsal of right foot
38. In connection with the above said injuries the doctor is of the opinion that the said injuries are grievous in nature. By taking into consideration of the nature of the injuries and the treatment taken by the petitioner, he could have undergone pain and sufferings while taking treatment. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.30,000/- under the head of Pain and Sufferings.
Loss of income during treatment period:
39. PW1 has stated that, he was doing real estate business and earning Rs.30,000/- per month. In this regard, there is no iota of documents to show the income of the petitioner. In the absence of the documents, it is apt to be considered notional income of the petitioner. The petitioner has taken the treatment as an outpatient. Any how he has sustained grievous injuries, definitely, there was SCCH-18 17 MVC 4372/2023 some difficulty to him to do daily routine work and to do his work for livelihood at least for a period of one month by looking in to the nature of the injuries sustained by him. Hence, I am of the view that, it is just and proper to award compensation of Rs.16,000/- towards loss of income during the laid up period and rest period.
Medical Expeneses;
40. The petitioner in connection with his treatment expenses produced medical bills at Ex.P14 to the extent of Rs.8,404/- along with prescriptions as per Ex.P11. Other side not disputed the medical bills. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.8,404/- towards medical expenses.
Attendant charges, food and nourishment and conveyance charges;
41. The petitioner herein, as per the medical records and also on going through the medical records the petitioner has taken treatment as an outpatient, definitely the petitioner could have spent some amount towards, food, nourishment, conveyance, as well as towards attendant charges.
SCCH-18 18 MVC 4372/2023Hence, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards attendant charges, food, nourishment and conveyance charges.
Loss of future income;
42.The petitioner herein, asserting that, he had sustained permanent disability, consequent upon the injuries sustained by him. Except production of medical documents and averments made in the main petition as well as in the chief affidavit, has not made an effort to examine the treated doctor in order to prove the disability sustained by him, due to the accidental injuries in order to know, whether the injuries sustained by the petitioner, will effect to his future and whether the said injuries will make any discomfort to the petitioner to do his routine work as well as his work for his avocation. In such a situation, court cannot consider the loss of future income, in the absence of convincing evidence from the side of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has not made out acceptable grounds, to get the compensation under the head of loss of future income due to want of evidence on record.
SCCH-18 19 MVC 4372/2023Loss of amenities;
43. In the light of the injuries mentioned in the wound certificate, definitely the petitioner will suffer a slight problem in future also, to do his normal work. And the claimant has to bear with certain discomfort. By taking into consideration of all these aspects, I am of the view that, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.5,000/- towards loss of amenities.
Future Medical Expenses;
44. The petitioner has not placed any documents with regard to future medication. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for compensation under the head of future medical expenses.
45. In view of my discussions held above, on various aspects the petitioner is entitled for compensation in toto, under the following heads:
Compensation heads Compensation amount
1.Pain and Suffering Rs.30,000-00
2.Loss of income during Rs.16,000-00 laid-up period and rest period
3. Medical expenses Rs. 8,404-00 SCCH-18 20 MVC 4372/2023
4. Attendant, Nourishment Rs. 5,000-00 and Conveyance Charges
5. Loss of future income Nil due to disability
6. Loss of Amenities Rs. 5,000-00
7.Future medical expenses Nil Total Rs.64,404-00
46. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.64,404/- (Rupees sixty four thousand four hundred and four only), along with interest @ 6% per annum, as per the proposition laid down by the Honourable High court of Karnataka in, MFA No.103557/2016, between Sri Ram General Insurance Company Limited V/S. Lakshmi And Others dated. 20.03.2018. And MFA No.30131/2019 dated.12.5.2020, from the date of the petition, till the realization of the award amount.
LIABILITY:
47. As regards the liability is concerned, it is the assertion of the petitioner that, due to actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the Canter Lorry bearing registration No.KA-22-D-7010 alleged accident had taken place. The evidence given by the SCCH-18 21 MVC 4372/2023 petitioner in connection with the issue No.1, remained unshaken.
48. As per Ex.R3 insurance policy, which is valid from 13.1.2023 to 12.1.2024. The alleged accident occurred on 30.1.2023. As such, I am of the view that, the respondent No.1 being the owner and the respondent No.2 being the insurance company of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. In view of the valid insurance policy, the respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition, till its realization. Accordingly, I am answering the issue No.2 partly in the Affirmative.
ISSUE No.3:
49. In view of above discussions on issue Nos.1 & 2, I proceed to pass the following;
O R D E R The claim petition filed by the petitioner U/s 166 of M.V. Act is partly allowed with cost.
The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.64,404/- (Rupees sixty SCCH-18 22 MVC 4372/2023 four thousand four hundred and four only) along with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of the petition till the realization of the award amount.
The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. In view of the valid insurance policy, the respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization within two months from the date of this order.
After deposit of the compensation amount with interest, since the award amount is very meagre, entire amount shall be released to the petitioner through due process of law.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1000/-. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 1st day of April 2025).
(DHANESH MUGALI) III ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER MACT & ACJM, BENGALURU.
SCCH-18 23 MVC 4372/2023ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on petitioner's side:
PW1 Shri Vishwas J.B. List of documents exhibited on petitioner's side:
Ex.P1 FIR Ex.P2 First information statement Ex.P3 Spot mahazar Ex.P4 Spot sketch Ex.P5 Notice U/sec.133 of IMV Act, Ex.P6 Reply to the Notice U/sec.133 of IMV Act, Ex.P7 IMV report Ex.P8 Wound certificate Ex.P9 Charge sheet Ex.P10 Medical bills Ex.P11 Prescriptions Ex.P12 Notarized copy of Aadhar card Ex.P13 Notarized copy of D.L.
List of witnesses examined on respondents' side:
RW1 Sri Dr. R.S.Patil RW2 Smt.Kruthishree N.
List of documents exhibited on respondents' side:
Ex.R1 MLC Copy
SCCH-18 24 MVC 4372/2023
Ex.R2 Authorization letter
Ex.R3 Copy of insurance Policy.
III ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE
MEMBER MACT & ACJM,
BENGALURU.