Bangalore District Court
Shri Siddaraju vs Reliance Gen. Insurance Co.Ltd on 27 July, 2016
Before the VII Addl.Judge, XXXII ACMM and MACT,
Court of Small Causes, Bangalore
(SCCH-3)
Present: Smt. Gomati Raghavendra,
LL.M., D.I.P.R., D.C.L.,
VII Additional Small Causes Judge
and Member, M.A.C.T., Bengaluru.
Dated this the 27th day of July 2016
M.V.C.No.5006/2013
Petitioner Shri Siddaraju,
Son of Sannaiah,
AGed about 38 years,
No.74, Markalu,
Malavalli Taluk,
Mandya District.
(Shri B.K.Vasudeva Murthy,
Advocate)
V/s
Respondents Reliance GEN. Insurance Co.Ltd.,
East Wing 5th floor,
No.28, Centenary building,
M.G.Road, Bengaluru-560 001.
Policy Cover Note
No.C1202522334001368.
(Shri H.C.Betsur, Advocate)
2.Smt.R.Kavitha,
Wife of Ranganathan,
2 SCCH-3 MVC 5006/2013
No.572, Shri Shivarama Careers,
Perunduru Raj Road,
Kuppanna Hotel Land,
Erode, Tamil Nadu-642 001.
(Exparte)
JUDGMENT
This is a petition filed by the petitioner against the respondents under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, for seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident.
2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as under:
That on 5.2.2013 at about 3.50 a.m., the petitioner was on duty as a police constable and was standing on corner of BB road, near IAF Ganesha temple very carefully and cautiously by observing all the traffic rules and regulations, at that time one Mahindra Max Jeep bearing registration No.TN-33-AM-6917 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner without observing the traffic rules and regulations dashed against him. Due to the said 3 SCCH-3 MVC 5006/2013 impact, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately he was shifted to Hosmat hospital, wherein he was treated as inpatient. The accident in question was taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Mahindra Max. Thereby, Yalahanka Traffic police have registered a case against the driver of the Mahindra Max in Cr.No.16/2013 for the offences punishable u/s 279 and 337 of IPC. The respondent Nos. 1 & 2 the insurer and the owner are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Hence, this petition.
3. Inspite of service of summons, the respondent No.2 failed to appear before the court and placed exparte.
4. Respondent No.1 has appeared through his counsel and filed the written statement, in which it is contended that claim petition filed by petitioner is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Neither the owner of the vehicle nor the jurisdictional police have complied the mandatory 4 SCCH-3 MVC 5006/2013 provisions of u/s 134© and S. 158(6) of the M.V. Act, in furnishing the better particulars. Further denied the column Nos. 1 to 15 and 17 to 22 of the petition averments with regard to date, time, month, year, place of accident and the manner of accident and also with regard to age, avocation, income and also with regard to the injuries sustained by the petitioner, disablement caused to the petitioner, nature of injuries, expenses incurred towards treatment and medical bills and also degree of disability coming in the way of his avocation. Further contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner and as per panchanama and sketch the accident occurred on the tar road that the petitioner was not working at duty place and was crossing the road without observing the traffic. Hence, negligence is more on the part of the petitioner and prays to dismiss the petition. 5 SCCH-3 MVC 5006/2013
5.On the basis of the pleadings and materials on record, this Tribunal has framed the following issues;
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, on 5.2.2013 at about 3.50 a.m. on B.B.Road, near IAF Ganesha Temple, Yelahanka, Bengaluru, the driver of the Jeep-Mahendra Max bearing registration No.TN-33-AM-6912 drove it at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him and due to which, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries?
2. Whether 1st respondent proves that the driver of Jeep-Mahendra Max bearing registration No.TN-33-AM-5917 had no valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident?
3. Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, for what amount and from whom?
4. What Order or Award?
6 SCCH-3 MVC 5006/2013
6.The petitioner in order to prove the claim petition has examined himself as PW1 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 and respondent No.1 has not examined any witness nor marked any document on its behalf..
7.Heard arguments and perused the materials on record.
8. My finding on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1: Affirmative
Issue No.2: Negative
Issue No.3: Partly affirmative
Issue No.4: As per the final order
for the following.
REASONS
9. ISSUE No.1:
According to the petitioner, he sustained bodily injuries in the accident that took place on 5.2.2013 at 7 SCCH-3 MVC 5006/2013 about 3.50 a.m. when he was on duty as a police constable and was standing on corner of BB road, near IAF Ganesha temple very carefully and cautiously by observing all the traffic rules and regulations, at that time one Mahindra Max jeep bearing registration No.TN-33-AM-6917 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner without observing the traffic rules and regulations dashed against him. Due to the said impact, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately he was shifted to Hosmat hospital, wherein he took the treatment as an inpatient. The accident in question has taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Mahindra Max. Thereby, Yalahanka Traffic police have registered a case against the driver of the Mahindra Max in Cr.No.16/2013 for the offences punishable u/s 279 and 338 of IPC.
10.The petitioner in support of his oral evidence has produced prosecution papers as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 such as 8 SCCH-3 MVC 5006/2013 FIR, complaint, charge sheet, wound certificate, sketch, mahazar, IMV report. On perusal of complaint filed by Raja Naik, it discloses that on 5.2.2013 the offending vehicle driver has caused the accident. Ex.P2 is the FIR prepared on the basis of the complaint and case came to be registered against the driver of the Mahjindra Max for the offences punishable us 279 and 338 of IPC. After investigation I.O. has filed the charge sheet as per Ex.P3 against the offending vehicle driver for the offences punishable u/s 279 and 338 of IPC. Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 are the sketch and mahazar, which are prepared at the scene of occurrence, which also discloses that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Mahindra Max. Ex.P7 is the IMV report drawn by the motor vehicle inspector which reveals that the accident was not due to any mechanical defect. On perusal of wound certificate marked as Ex.P4, it reflects that the 9 SCCH-3 MVC 5006/2013 petitioner sustained injuries in a road traffic accident hit by Mahindra Max. Hence, taking into consideration of both the oral and documentary evidence relied upon by the petitioner as well as materials on record it is established that the driver of the offending vehicle caused the accident due to his wrongful act. Absolutely there are no contra materials produced by the respondent to disbelieve the contents of the petition that the accident in question has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Mahindra Max. Accordingly, I answer this issue in the affirmative.
11. ISSUE No.2:
Respondent No.1 has contended in his written statement that the as on the date of alleged accident offending vehicle driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence, but the reasons best known to the respondent No.1 has not placed any materials to show that 10 SCCH-3 MVC 5006/2013 as on the date of the alleged accident the offending vehicle driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence and moreover Ex.P3 is the charge sheet filed by the I.O., nowhere discloses that the offending vehicle driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the alleged accident. If at all, the offending vehicle driver was not holding the valid and effective driving licence the I.O., would have charge sheeted against the offending vehicle driver for the offence punishable under Section 181 of MV Act. So, on record there is no material to show that the offending vehicle driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the alleged accident, that itself is clear that as on the date of the alleged accident the offending vehicle driver was holding valid and effective driving licence. Hence, I answer this issue in the Negative.11 SCCH-3 MVC 5006/2013
12.ISSUE No.3:
a)Pain and Suffering:
In order to prove, point No.2, injured PW1-Siddaraju, in his evidence has stated that on 5.2.2013 at about 3.50 a.m. he was a pedestrian proceeding on his duty as a police constable and was standing on the corner of BB road, near IAF Ganesha Temple carefully and cautiously, at that time one Jeep Mahendra Max bearing TN-33-AM-6917 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came to extreme corner and dashed against the petitioner. Due to which he has sustained following injuries;
Type I area fracture both bones of right fore arm lower 1/3rd Immediately he was shifted to Hosmat hospital, wherein he took the treatment as inpatient for about 5 days. Multiple operations were done and implant is fixed to 12 SCCH-3 MVC 5006/2013 his right hand. He has produced the wound certificate marked at Ex.P4, which reveals the following injury;
Type I open fracture both bones of right forearm- lower 1/3rd The doctor is of the opinion that the said injury is grievous in nature. The petitioner has not examined the doctor. So, considering the oral evidence of PW1 and the injuries sustained by the petitioner, he might have sustained pain and agony for which, it is just and necessary to award compensation of Rs.40,000/- for the above head.
b) Loss of income during laid up period:
PW1 being the injured in his evidence has stated that prior to the accident he was hale and healthy working as a police constable and was getting a salary of Rs.17,500/- per month. Due to the accidental injuries he could not do the work as before. He has produced the pay slips marked at 13 SCCH-3 MVC 5006/2013 Ex.P10 which reveals that he was getting a salary of Rs.14,070/- per month. So, considering the oral evidence of PW1 and the documents produced him he might have lost income for a period of two months. So, two months income comes to Rs.28,140/-. So, Rs.28,140/- is granted for the above head.
c) Medical expenses PW1 being the injured in his evidence has stated that he has sustained the injuries in a road traffic accident and took the treatment as an inpatient. He is having Arogya Bhagya Scheme. So, he got reimbursement from the Arogya Bhagya Scheme. Therefore, no amount is granted towards medical expenses.
d) Loss of future earning:
PW1 being the injured in his evidence has clearly stated that he has sustained grievous injuries. Due to the accidental injuries he gets pain in his right hand and 14 SCCH-3 MVC 5006/2013 cannot do any kind of hard work, cannot carry any item and cannot lift any weight by right hand and shoulder. The petitioner has not examined the treated doctor to assess the disability. In the cross-examination of PW1 he has admitted that he has continued his job as usual. So, question of granting loss of future income does not arise. Therefore, no amount is granted for the above head.
e) Loss of amenities, conveyance, food and nourishment, attendant charges:
PW1 being the injured in his evidence has clearly stated that he has sustained injuries in a road traffic accident and took the treatment as an inpatient and also outpatient. So, considering the evidence of PW1 and documents placed before the court, it is just and necessary to grant Rs.10,000/- for the above head, it will meet the ends of justice. So, Rs.10,000/- is granted for the above head.15 SCCH-3 MVC 5006/2013
13. Thus the total award stands as follows:
1.Pain and suffering Rs.40,000-00
2.Loss of income during laid Rs.28,140-00 up period
3.Medical bills NIL
4.Loss of future earning Nil
5.Loss of amenities, Rs.10,000-00 conveyance, food and nourishment, attendant charges etc. Total Rs.78,140-00
14. While discussing issue No.1 the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that due to the wrongful act of the driver of the Mahindra Max bearing registration No.KA-TN- 33-AM-6917 the present accident has taken place in which the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries as stated in the petition. According to the petitioner the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to him.
16 SCCH-3 MVC 5006/2013
15. Respondent No.1 insurance company has filed a memo stating that the policy is valid from 21.9.2012 to 20.9.2013. He has produced Xerox copy of the policy. The accident was occurred on 5.2.2013, which means to say that the policy was in force at the time of accident. Therefore, the respondent Nos.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. But in view of the valid insurance policy the respondent No.1 alone is liable to pay the compensation with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. In the result, the issue No.2 is answered as partly in the affirmative.
16. Issue No.4:
In view of my finding on Issue Nos.1 & 2, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner under section 166 of M.V. Act is partly allowed, with costs. The petitioner is 17 SCCH-3 MVC 5006/2013 entitled for compensation of Rs.78,140/- together with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till its realisation.
The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. In view of the valid insurance policy the respondent No.1 being the insurer shall pay the compensation amount with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of the petition till its realisation within a period of 30 days from the date of this order.
On deposit of the compensation amount together with interest, the entire amount shall be released to the petitioner by means of A/c payee cheque on proper identification.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.500/-.
Draw award accordingly.
Dictated to the stenographer online, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 27th day of July 2016.
(GOMATI RAGHAVENDRA) VII Addl. Judge & XXXII ACMM, Bengaluru.18 SCCH-3 MVC 5006/2013
ANNEXURE List of the witnesses examined on behalf of petitioner:
PW1 Shri Siddaraju 24.7.2015 List of the documents exhibited on behalf of petitioner:
Ex.P1 True copy of FIR Ex.P2 True copy of Complaint Ex.P3 True copy of Charge sheet Ex.P4 True copy of Wound certificate Ex.P5 True copy of Sketch Ex.P6 True copy of Mahazar Ex.P7 True copy of IMV report Ex.P8 Discharge summary Ex.P9 ID card Ex.P10 Pay slips
List of the witnesses examined on behalf of respondents:
None List of the documents marked on behalf of respondents:
Nil (GOMATI RAGHAVENDRA) VII Addl. Judge & XXXII ACMM, Bengaluru.