Bangalore District Court
Thammegowda vs The Manager on 12 April, 2019
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
AT BENGALURU
(SCCH:15)
MVC No.1017/2018
THIS THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2019
Present: RAJANNA SANKANNANAVAR,
B.A., LL.B.,(Spl.)
XIII Addl. Judge,
Court of Small Causes, and
Member MACT, Bengaluru.
Petitioner/s: Thammegowda, S/o Jogigowda,
65 yrs., Belathur, Maddur Taluk,
Koppa Hobli, Mandya District.
(Sri Krishna Murthy.S.G Adv. For petitioner)
V/s
Respondents: The Manager, KSRTC,
Shanthi Nagara, Double Road,
Bengaluru-560 010.
(Sri Mahadevaiah Adv. For Respondent)
JUDGMENT
The Petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act against the respondent SCCH-15 2 MVC No.1017/2018 together for relief of compensation sum of Rs.10,00,000/- in view of injuries sustained in a road traffic accident.
The case of petitioner is as follows:
2. On 08.12.2017 at about 11.30 a.m. the petitioner was proceeding by riding his motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-
11/EB-1828 from Rampur towards Maddur, when he was reached Rampura-Sollepura Road, Kasaba Hobli, Maddur Taluk Mandya district, at that time, one KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA-09-F-3904 came from same road by driven its driver in rash and negligent manner in high speed and dashed back side of the petitioner's motor cycle and caused the accident. Due to which, the petitioner was fell and sustained grievous injuries. In this regard, Basagarahalli Police have registered the case under Cr.No.163/2017. The petitioner has been taken treatment in various Hospitals and he has spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses and incidental SCCH-15 3 MVC No.1017/2018 charges. The petitioner was aged 65 years and he was working as Agriculture and was having income sum of Rs.15,000/- p.m. Now due to the accidental injuries the petitioner could not attend his work as earlier. Thus, the respondent is the owner- cum-internal insurer of KSRTC Bus. Hence, respondent is liable to pay the compensation as pray in the claim petition.
3. In pursuance of the notice to the respondent and he has appeared through his Advocate and filed statement of objection.
The facts of the objection are as follows:
4. In the objection of Respondent, there is no dispute regarding owner-cum-internal insurer of KSRTC Bus bearing Reg.KA-09/F-3904 and denied remaining averments which were made in the petition. Respondent contended that KSRTC bus never involved in the alleged accident, further contended that the rider of motor cycle was purely a self accident, further SCCH-15 4 MVC No.1017/2018 contended that the KSRTC bus was not at all involved in the alleged accident. Hence, this respondent prays to dismiss the petitioner against him.
5. On the pleadings of both the parties, this tribunal has framed issues as follows:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that she has sustained injuries due to RTA alleged to have been occurred on 08.12.2017 at about 11.30 a.m. Rampur to Sollepura Road, Kasab Hobli, Maddur Taluk Mandya District, due to the rash and negligent driven by the driver of KSRTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-09/F-3904?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what amount & from whom?
3. What order or award?
6. In order to proving the above issues, on behalf of the petitioner himself examined as PW.1 and got marked documents at Ex.P1 to 10 and on behalf of the petitioner a doctor by name Dr.S.Ramachandra has been examined as SCCH-15 5 MVC No.1017/2018 P.W.2 and got marked at Ex.P.11 and 12, further a witness by name Siddegowda has been examined as P.W.3. On the other hand respondent's bus driver by name K.H.Ashok has been examined as R.W.1 and got marked at Ex.R.1 and the witnesses by name Ramadass and K.M.Swamy have been examined as R.W.2 & 3 respectively, further another witness by name Ramaligaiah has been examined as R.W.4 and got marked at Ex.R.2 to 9.
7. Heard arguments of both the sides on merits of the case and perused the record.
8. Now the findings of this Tribunal on the above said issues are answered in the;
Issue No.1: In the Negative Issue No.2: In the Negative Issue No.3: As per final order for the following REASONS
09. I S S U E No.1 :- The petitioner has filed present claim petition under the MV Act for compensation in view of SCCH-15 6 MVC No.1017/2018 sustained injuries in alleged RTA which occurred on 08.12.2017 at about 11.30 a.m. Rampur to Sollepura Road, Kasab Hobli, Maddur Taluk Mandya District, herein there is no dispute respondent is the owner-cum-internal insurer of KSRTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-09/F-3904. Wherein asserted in the claim petition that the alleged accident was occurred due to negligent driven by the driver of KSRTC Bus Bearing Reg. No.KA-09/F-3904. Contrary to that, respondent has contended that the so bus was not caused accident and the same has not been involved in the alleged accident, further contended that the rider of motor cycle is purely a self accident. On perusal of both pleadings, herein the question is arise for consideration as whether the said accident was occurred due to actionable negligent driven by the driver of KSRTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-09/F3904 or not. In order to substantiate the same, P.W.1 has produced copy of FIR at SCCH-15 7 MVC No.1017/2018 Ex.P1, Complaint at Ex.P1(a), copy of Crime Details Form at Ex.P2 and copy of Charge sheet at Ex.P5. On perusal of these documents, in that, Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.1(a) discloses that, the Basagaraghalli Police have registered a case under Cr.No.163/2017 on basis of complaint submit by T.Ramesha S/o. Thammegowda with respect of accident for investigation. Afterwards the Basagaraghalli Police have conducted investigation and filed a final report against KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA-09-F-3904 for the offence Punishable U/sec.279, 337 and 338 of IPC. Wherein, on Examined Ex.P.1, 2 and 5, its reveals that the alleged accident was occurred due to an actionable negligent driven by the driver of KSRTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-09-F-3904.
10. So far, oral evidence of petitioner is concerned, PW-1 has deposed that on 08.12.2017 at about 11.30 a.m. he was proceeding in motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-11/EB-1828 from SCCH-15 8 MVC No.1017/2018 Rampura to Maddur and when he was reached Rampura to Sollepura Road, Kasaba Hobli, Maddur Taluk Mandya at that time, a KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA-09/F-3904 was came from same road by driven its driver in rash and negligent manner and dashed his back side of the motor cycle and he has been subjected to cross examination and in the cross examination he has deposed that one Siddegouda was pillion rider on that day and as per final report he is an eye witness and first informant to alleged the accident, as such Siddegouda S/o. Marisiddegowda has been examined as P.W.3 and he has deposed as deposed by P.W.1. Wherein, on looking to the oral evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3, it is disclosed that when they were proceedings in a motor cycle and then KSRTC Bus came from back side and hit to their motor cycle. But, either P.W.1 or P.W.3 have not been produced copy of IMV report to substantiate the alleged KSRTC bus was hit to back side of SCCH-15 9 MVC No.1017/2018 motor cycle, why the petitioner has not produced said IMV report, in this regard, there is no explanation, further P.W.1 and P.W.3 are the nearest relative each together, thus, they are very interested witness, further very important note that, admittedly, P.W.3 was the pillion rider of so motor cycle and as per say of P.W.1 & P.W.2, alleged bus hit to back side of their motor cycle, if so, such a situation, P.W.3 should ought to have been caused the injuries, but, as per police records and as per oral evidence of P.W.1 & 3, he has i.e., P.W.3 has not sustained any type of injuries.
11. Further, in the cross examination of P.W.3, he has deposed initially that the KSRTC bus was moving ahead of their motor cycle, later, he has voluntarily deposed that so KSRTC bus was coming from behind their motor cycle, Further he has deposed that the petitioner was riding motor cycle and he was pillion rider, further deposed that there is a SCCH-15 10 MVC No.1017/2018 land which belongs Ramadas is situated and soon after the accident was Ramadas was came to the spot, so also, one K.M.Swamy was also came to the spot and this facts are undisputed by the parties of claim petition.
12. As such, on behalf of the respondent the driver of so bus by name K.H.Ashok has been examined as R.W.1 and on behalf of the respondent said Ramadas and K.M.Swamy have been examined as R.W.2 and 3 respectively. In that, R.W.1 who is driver of alleged bus and deposed that on 08.12.2017 at about 11.30 a.m. his bus bearing Reg.No.KA-09/F-3904 never involved in the alleged accident and alleged accident was purely a self accident.
13. Whereas, R.W.2 and R.W.3 have deposed that they were seen the accident and one motor cycle bearing Reg. No.KA-11/EB-1828 ridden by its rider along with pillion rider in rash and negligent manner and lost their control over the SCCH-15 11 MVC No.1017/2018 motor cycle and fell down on the road pit(man whole) and rider was suffered minor injuries, during that time KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA-09/F-3904 was going in front of said motor cycle and they were went to the spot and shifted the injured to the hospital and R.W.2 and R.W.3 are subjected to cross examination and in the same the petitioner did not denied as R.W.2 & R.W.3 are not the eye witnesses, it means to say that they have admits as R.W.2 and R.W.3 are the eye witnesses to alleged accident, more over, P.W.2 who has pillion rider of alleged accident and himself admits that soon after the alleged accident R.W.2 & 3 have come to the spot, as such in the cross examination of R.W.2 & 3 the petitioner has admits about road pit (man whole) is situated on the road by making suggestion, but, suggested that the rider of motor cycle was riding the motor cycle by slowly in order to escape said road pit, at that time, alleged bus was came from back side hit to the SCCH-15 12 MVC No.1017/2018 petitioner's motor cycle and the same is denied by the R.W.2 & 3, Apart from this, nothing elicited in the mouth of them about non-involvement bus in the alleged accident, instead of that, in the cross examination of R.W.2 & 3 have repeatedly said that alleged bus was moving ahead of petitioner's motor cycle, it clearly goes to show that alleged bus was not hit to the petitioner's motor cycle, but said bus was moving ahead of so motor cycle. Moreover, R.W.2 & 3 are the independent witness and there is no nexuses between respondent and themselves, further R.W.2 & R.W.3 are the eye witnesses to the alleged accident, but, contrary to that, P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the interested witnesses, inmates of so motor cycle and they are close relative to each other and P.W.2 was proceedings as a pillion rider of petitioner's vehicle, therefore the oral evidence of R.W.2 & 3 are more weightage than the oral evidence of P.W.1 & 2 and therefore the oral evidence of R.W.2 and 3 is more SCCH-15 13 MVC No.1017/2018 relevant rather then the oral evidence of P.W.1 & 2, further there is no any reason for discard the oral evidence of R.W.2 &
3. Further, petitioner has not been produced IMV report to show alleged bus was hit to the back side of motor cycle, further there is delay of three days in lodging the complaint and there is no explanation in that regard by the petitioner, further petitioner has not been admitted under MLC, further petitioner has not been produced copy of MLC to show he has admits in the Govt. Hospital, Mandya under MLC and alleged accident was occurred by the alleged bus, no doubt, P.W.1 has produced discharge summary at Ex.P.6 of M.I.M.S.T.Hospital, Mandy, but, in that, nowhere mentioned as hit by alleged KSRTC bus to the petitioner. In view of above observation, this tribunal has come to conclusion that the petitioner has failed to established that he has sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driven by the driver of KSRTC Bus bearing SCCH-15 14 MVC No.1017/2018 Reg.No.KA-09-F-3904 in the alleged accident. Under these circumstances this tribunal has come to conclusion that the petitioner has failed to establish that the accident was occurred and he has sustained the injuries due to rash and negligence driven by the driver of so bus and he has failed to establish that he has sustained injuries in view of alleged RTA. So far compensation to the petitioner's is concerned, when the petitioner has failed to establish that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driven by the driver of KSRTC Bus bearing Reg. Reg.No.KA-09-F-3904 and then the question of entitling the compensation from the Respondent doesn't arise. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled compensation as claimed in the petition. Hence this tribunal answered the ISSUE No. 1 and 2 In the Negative.
14. I S S U E No.3:- From the above discussions, this Tribunal proceeds to pass the following order. SCCH-15 15 MVC No.1017/2018
ORDER The Petition under Section 166 of MV Act filed by petitioner against the Respondent is hereby dismissed.
Draw award accordingly.
(I have personally typed on the my Lap-top, corrected by me and then pronounced by me in open court of this the 12th day of April 2019) (RAJANNA SANKANANNANAVAR) XIII Addl. Judge & Member MACT Court of Small Causes, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
PW-1 Sri Thammegowda PW-2 Dr. S.Ramachandra PW-3 Sri Siddegowda
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS:
RW-1 Sri K.H.Ashok RW-2 Sri Ramadass RW-3 Sri K.M.Swamy RW-4 Sri Ramalingaiah S.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS Marked ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
Ex.P.1 Copy of FIR
Ex.P.1(a) Copy of complaint
Ex.P.2 Crime details form
Ex.P.3 Copy of seizer mahazar
Ex.P.4 Wound certificate
SCCH-15 16 MVC No.1017/2018
Ex.P.5 Charge sheet
Ex.P.6 2 Discharge summaries
Ex.P.7 21 medical bills
Ex.P.8 19 prescriptions
Ex.P.9 Copy of Aadhaar card
Ex.P.10 RTC
Ex.P.11 OPD
Ex.P.12 X-ray
LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS:
Ex.R.1 Postal receipt
Ex.R.2 Investigation report
Ex.R.3 Statement of Varadaraju
Ex.R.4 Statement of Swamy K.M.
Ex.R.5 Statement of Ramdass
Ex.R.6 Statement of K.H.Ashok
Ex.R.7 Statement of Anitha Lakshmi
Ex.R.8 Copy of IMV report
Ex.R.9 Log sheet
(RAJANNA SANKANNANAVAR)
XIII Addl. Judge & Member MACT
Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.