Bangalore District Court
Federation Of Karnataka Lorry Owners ... vs K. Vasu on 25 April, 2024
BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
MEMBER PRL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT
BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF APRIL 2024.
PRESENT : Smt. B.V. RENUKA, B.Sc., L.L.B.
MEMBER, PRL. M.A.C.T.
M.V.C. No. 6253/2019
PETITIONER: M/s. Federation of Karnataka Lorry
Owners' Association (Regd).,
No.2, 1st cross, Chikkanna Garden,
Shankarpuram,
Bengaluru - 560 018.
Represented by
Vishwanath S/o Shivarama Reddy,
Aged 60 years,
Office Secretary.
(Represented by Sri M.R.Kumaraswamy,
Advocate)
-Vs-
RESPONDENTS:1. Mr. K.Vasu,
S/o Late Krishna Raju,
# 67/1, Venkateshwara
Colony new, Thipasandra,
Jeevanbhima Nagar,
Bengaluru - 560 075.
(Owner of the Lorry bearing
Reg.No.KA-02-AE-6767)
(Exparte)
2. Royal Sundaram General
Insurance Company Limited,
Welcome's Boulevard building,
Second Floor, No.1993,
SCCH-1 2 MVC No.6253/2019
'B' Sector, third phase,
Ward No.4, Yelahanka Extension,
Bengaluru -560 064.
(Insurer of the Lorry bearing
Reg.No.KA-02-AE-6767)
(Policy No.VGC0551495000100
Valid from 06.04.20219 to 05.04.2020)
(Represented by Sri B.N.Srikantaswamy,
Advocate)
*******
JUDGMENT
This claim petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 166 of the of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- along with interest from the respondents on account of the damages caused to the 5th petrol and diesel pump and its platform in an accident.
2. Briefly stated the case of the petitioner is as follows:
That on 28.07.2019 at about 10.45 p.m. when the driver of the respondent No.1 came to fill the diesel to the lorry bearing registration No.KA-02-AE-6767 inside the Federation of Karnataka Petrol Bunk, Outer Ring road, Bengaluru city, at that time the said lorry was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the petitioner's 5th petrol and diesel pump and petrol and diesel SCCH-1 3 MVC No.6253/2019 pump platform. As a result, 5th petrol and diesel pump platform, pump and other accessories were completely damaged and the pump was closed for sometime, due to this the petitioner suffered financial loss. The petitioner has spent Rs.2,00,000/- for repair of the pump. A case was registered in Crime No.82/2019 at Yeshwanthapura Traffic Police Station. Hence, this petition for compensation.
3. In response to the notice, the respondent No.1 has not chosen to appear before the Court and he was placed exparte.
4. Respondent No.2 has appeared through its advocate and filed its written statement, wherein it has denied the entire averments of the petition as false. As per the IMV Report no visible damages were found on the lorry. If the lorry was driven in a rash and negligent manner and hit the petrol and diesel pump, then the front portion of the lorry ought to have been damaged, but there is no visible damages to the lorry, this fact clearly substantiates that the insured vehicle was not involved in the accident. SCCH-1 4 MVC No.6253/2019 The issuance of the policy in respect of the lorry bearing reg. No.KA-02-AE-6767 is admitted and the policy was valid from 06.04.2019 to 05.04.2020, but the liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. The owner of the vehicle has not lodged any complaint with this respondent and has not proved whether the driver of the said lorry had valid driving licence as on the date of accident . The compensation claimed is excessive and exorbitant. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings, this Court has framed the following issues:
1. Whether the petitioner proves the 5th petrol and diesel pump and its platform were damaged in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 28.07.2019 at about 10.45 p.m., inside Federation of Karnataka Petrol Bunk, Outer Ring Road, Bengaluru, within the jurisdiction of Yeshwanthapura Traffic Police Station on account of rash and negligent driving of the Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-02-E-6767 by its driver ?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation ? If so, how much and from whom?
3. What order ?
6. The Manager of the petitioner got examined himself as PW-1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.22. The respondent No.2 has not led any evidence.
SCCH-1 5 MVC No.6253/2019
7. Heard the arguments on both sides.
8. My findings on the above issues are as follows: :
Issue No.1 ... In the Affirmative, Issue No.2 ... Partly in the affirmative,compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from the respondents No.1 an 2.
Issue No.3 ... As per final order for the following:-
REASONS
9. Issue No.1 :- The petitioner Association represented by its Office Secretary has filed this petition seeking compensation on account of the damages caused to the 5th petrol and diesel pump and petrol and diesel pump platform belonging to the Association. The petitioner in order to prove this issue, is relying upon the evidence of its Manager as PW.1 and documentary evidence as per Exs.P.1 to P.7, P.10 to P.18 such as authorization letter, Aadhaar Card, FIR with complaint, spot panchanama, IMV report, spot sketch, chargesheet and photos. PW.1 in his affidavit evidence has narrated the manner in which the accident occurred and accident was due to the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.KA-02-AE-6767 resulting in damages to SCCH-1 6 MVC No.6253/2019 petrol and diesel pump and petrol and diesel pump platform. The first respondent being the owner of the said lorry, has remained exparte. The second respondent being the insurer of the said lorry has denied the accident and also the negligence aspect. Let us consider the evidence placed by the parties to decide this issue.
10. PW.1 has produced Authorization letter as per Ex.P.1 issued by the President of the Petitioner's Association. As per the said document, the President of M/s Federation of Karnataka Lorry Owners' Association (Registered) has authorized its Manager-PW.1 to give evidence in this case. As per this document, the petrol and diesel pump and petrol and diesel pump platform are situated in the petrol bunk belonging to M/s Federation of Karnataka Lorry Owners' Association. The second respondent counsel has cross-examined PW.1 wherein he has stated that he is the Manager of the Petitioner's Association and the Association is the owner of the petrol bunk. PW.1 admits that he has not produced any documents to show that the petitioner's Association is the owner of the petrol bunk. Merely because PW.1 has not SCCH-1 7 MVC No.6253/2019 produced any documents to show the ownership of the Association over the petrol bunk, it cannot be said that it is not the owner of the said petrol bunk, when the complaint is given by the affected party i.e., the Proprietor of the said Association. Therefore, the cross-examination made to PW.1 in this regard is of no consequence.
11. Ex.P.3 is the FIR with complaint which disclose that on the basis of the complaint lodged by one Muddahanumegowda who is the Proprietor of the Association, a criminal case was registered against the driver of the Lorry bearing registration No.KA02-AE-6767. Accident occurred on 28.07.2019, but the complaint was lodged on 29.07.2019. It is noticed that the accident has occurred on 28.07.2019 at about 10.45 p.m., and the complaint was lodged on the next day at 2 p.m. As such, it cannot be said that there is delay in lodging the complaint.
12. Spot mahazar-Ex.P.4 discloses that the police have visited the accident spot on 29.07.2019 and they have inspected the spot. As per the spot mahazar, the place of accident is in the premises of Bharath Petrol Bunk SCCH-1 8 MVC No.6253/2019 belonging to the Karnataka Lorry Owners' Association. In Ex.P.4, it is mentioned that due to hitting of the lorry to the petrol pump No.5, petrol and diesel pump and also the platform on which the petrol and diesel pump are situated were damaged. Ex.P.5 is the IMV report wherein it is mentioned that there is no visible damages to the lorry involved in the accident. Ex.P.6 is the sketch of the spot wherein the situation of petrol and diesel pump and also the movement of the lorry bearing registration No.KA-02- AE-6767 is shown. As per this sketch, the lorry has moved from the point 'D' and then has hit the pump No.5 which is the petrol and diesel pump in the petrol bunk. Thus, these documents clearly establish that it is the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.KA-02-AE-6767 has hit the lorry to the petrol and diesel pump resulting in damages to the said pump and also to its platform.
13. The photos at Exs.P.10 to P.16 disclose that the petrol and diesel pump has been damaged and also the tiles of the platform on which the petrol and diesel pump is situated was damaged. Ex.P.7 is the chargesheet filed by the police against the driver of the lorry bearing SCCH-1 9 MVC No.6253/2019 registration No.KA-02-AE-6767, after detailed investigation. Even in the chargesheet, it is mentioned that as the driver of the lorry drove it in a rash and negligent manner, this accident has occurred resulting in damages to the petrol and diesel pump and petrol and diesel pump platform. This chargesheet was not challenged by the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.KA-02-AE-6767. Even the first respondent being the owner of the said lorry has not contested the petition by appearing before the court. Though the second respondent-Insurance Company has denied the occurrence of the accident due to the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.KA- 02-AE-6767, but it has not chosen to place any evidence to disprove the case put forth by the petitioner. Thus, absolutely there is no rebuttal evidence placed by the second respondent to disbelieve the case of the petitioner. Even the second respondent has not chosen to summon the driver of the Lorry bearing registration No.KA-02-AE- 6767 to prove its contention. Hence, by considering all these aspects, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has SCCH-1 10 MVC No.6253/2019 proved that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.KA-02-AE-6767, resulting in damages to the petrol and diesel pump and its platform belonging to the petitioner's Association. Accordingly I answer Issue No.1 in the Affirmative.
14. Issue No.2 : The petitioner has claimed that it is the owner of the petrol bunk in which the petrol and diesel pump and its platform were damaged in accident. As discussed above, the materials on record disclose that the petitioner's Association is the owner of the petrol bunk in which the accident took place. PW.1 in his evidence has deposed that due to the accident caused by the lorry driver, 5th petrol and diesel pump and its platform were completely damaged and due to it, the pump was closed for some time and he suffered financial loss and he has spent Rs.2,00,000/- for its repair. In order to prove the same, PW.1 has produced Invoice bills, bank account statement, photos and GST registration certificate as per Exs.P.8 to P.21. The petitioner has also examined the Proprietor of Sai Petrol Services as PW.2 and PW.2 has deposed that he SCCH-1 11 MVC No.6253/2019 has repaired the damages caused to the petrol and diesel pump. Through him, Exs.P.20 and P.21 were marked.
15. Ex.P.8 is an Invoice bill issued by Sai Petrol Services, wherein it is mentioned that, for repair of the pump including damaged accessories, an amount of Rs.67,496/- was required. Even Ex.P.20 is the same invoice bill issued by the authorized signatory of Sai Petrol Services to the petitioner Association. These bills are disputed by the second respondent counsel in the cross- examination of PWs. 1 and 2. Exs.P.10 to P.16 are the photos of the petrol and diesel pump which discloses that pump was damaged and also its platform made of tiles was damaged.
16. PW.1 in his cross-examination has deposed that they have not got surveyed the damages caused to the petrol bunk in the accident. He admits that in the photos at Exs.P.16 and P.17, damages are shown, but in other photos, no damages are forthcoming to the petrol bunk. He also admits that Ex.P.8 is the invoice and there is no document to show that the amount spent as per the SCCH-1 12 MVC No.6253/2019 invoice-Ex.P.8 is regarding the damages caused to the petrol bunk shown in Ex.P.16 & P.17. PW.2 in his cross- examination has deposed that the surveyor has not assessed the quantum of damages, but the mother board display card, power supply card and inside pipelines are replaced. Even PW.2 has deposed that there are no photographs to show that the damaged parts are removed and no invoice bills are raised by giving break-up amount. In the invoice bills Ex.P.8(P.20), the cost of damaged parts i.e., mother board, display card, power supply card and pipelines are not specifically mentioned. Even there is no survey report regarding the damages caused to the petrol bunk in accident. Merely because there is no survey report before the court, whether the claim of the petitioner can be doubted is the point to be considered now.
17. The petitioner by examining PW.2, has proved the invoice bill at Ex.P.8(P.20), which disclose that the repair charges of petrol and diesel pump is about Rs.67,496/-. PW. 1 has produced bank statement of its Association at Ex.P.9, which discloses that the Association has transferred Rs.65,041/- to the account of Sai Petrol SCCH-1 13 MVC No.6253/2019 Services, which has got repaired the damages caused to the petrol and diesel pump. In the presence of Ex.P.9, Ex.P.8 cannot be doubted. Ex.P.18 is the photo of the petrol and diesel pump which has been got repaired after the accident. Hence, it can be said that the petitioner has got repaired the petrol and diesel pump by spending an amount of Rs.65,041/- as mentioned in the bank statement-Ex.P.9.
18. The photos produced before the court also discloses that the tiles of the platform of petrol and diesel pump was also damaged and the same has been got repaired by the petitioner. Hence, it can be said that the petitioner has spent some amount towards the repair of damages caused to the platform. PW.1 has deposed that the pump was closed for some time as it was completely damaged in accident and Association has suffered financial loss. But PW.1 has not specifically stated the time required for repairing the pump and also for how many days the said pump was closed without use. Even PW.1 has not specifically stated the amount of financial loss suffered by him on account of closing of the pump. However, by SCCH-1 14 MVC No.6253/2019 considering the damages caused to the petrol and diesel pump, it can be said that the said pump was closed without use for some time and due to it, the petitioner has suffered some financial loss. Hence, by considering all these aspects, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for global compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages caused to the petrol and diesel pump along with its platform of the petrol bunk in accident.
19. So far as the liability is concerned, according to the petitioner, the first respondent is the owner and the second respondent is the insurer of the lorry bearing registration No.KA-02-AE-6767. The first respondent has remained exparte. The second respondent has admitted that the said lorry was insured with it under a policy and the policy was valid from 06.04.2019 to 05.04.2020. Accident occurred on 28.07.2019. As such, it can be said that the policy was valid as on the date of accident. Therefore, the respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay global compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit in SCCH-1 15 MVC No.6253/2019 court. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.2 partly in the affirmative.
20. Issue No.3 : In view of my answers to issues No.1 and 2 and for the reasons stated therein, I proceed to pass the following: -
ORDER The claim petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in part with costs against the respondents No.1 and 2, awarding global compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit in Court.
The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount with interest to the petitioner. However, the respondent No.2, being the Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount in Court within 3 months from the date of this order.
After deposit of the compensation amount, the entire compensation amount shall be released in favour of the SCCH-1 16 MVC No.6253/2019 petitioner, as the compensation amount awarded is towards damages.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- . Draw an Award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.I, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 25th day of April, 2024.) (B.V.RENUKA) Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes & Member, Prl. M.A.C.T. Bangalore.
ANNEXURES Witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner:
P.W.1 : N. Prakash P.W.2 : Veeresa Lingam P.
Documents marked on behalf of the petitioner:
Ex.P-1 : Authorization Letter
Ex.P-2 : Notarized copy of Aadhaar Card of PW.1
Ex.P-3 : Certified copy of FIR with complaint
Ex.P-4 : Certified copy of spot panchanama
Ex.P-5 : Certified copy of IMV Report
Ex.P-6 : Certified copy of spot sketch
Ex.P-7 : Certified copy chargesheet
Ex.P-8 : Invoice bill
Ex.P-9 : Bank account statement with copy of
Cheque
Ex.P-10
to P-18 : Photos (9)
SCCH-1 17 MVC No.6253/2019
Ex.P-19 : CD
Ex.P-20 : Copy of Invoice Bill
Ex.P-21 : Copy of GST Registration Certificate
Ex.P-22 : Notarized copy of Aadhaar Card of PW2
Witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents :
- Nil-
Documents marked on behalf of the respondents:
- Nil-
(B.V.RENUKA) Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes & Member, Prl. M.A.C.T. Bangalore.