Bangalore District Court
Sri.Nagesh.C.R vs The Managing Director on 27 January, 2016
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AT BENGALURU
(SCCH:15)
DATED: THIS THE 27th DAY OF JANUARY, 2016
PRESENT : Smt.K.Katyayini, B.Com., LL.B.,
XIII Addl.Small Cause Judge
& Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
MVC No.5563/2014
Petitioner/s Sri.Nagesh.C.R.
S/o Rajanna,
Aged about 20 years.
Residing at:
Chaluvahalli Village,
Arabhikothanur Post,
Kolar Taluk & District.
(By Pleader - Sri.N.Manjunath.)
V/s
Respondent/s The Managing Director,
Karnataka State Road
Transport Corporation,
Central Office,
K.H.Road,
Shanthi Nagar,
Bengaluru - 27.
(By Pleader - Sri.N.Srinivasan.)
JUDGMENT
Petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 163A of MV Act seeking grant of compensation on account of injuries he has sustained in RTA. (SCCH-15) 2 MVC.5563/2014
2. The brief case of petitioner is that on 27.03.2014, he was proceeding towards his village Chaluvanahalli from Narasapura side on Dream Yuga motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-07 V-4070 as a pillion rider along with another pillion rider by name Nandan Kumar and rider by one Nagaraj.
b) At around 06:40 p.m. on the way when they came near Mettubande village gate, on Kolar - Bengaluru NH- 75 road (old NH-4), the said motor cycle collided head on with KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-07 F-1637 came from opposite direction. Due to the impact, petitioner fell down and suffered severe injuries.
c) Accident took place and the injuries caused to him due to the use of KSRTC bus. Therefore, respondent being the RC owner and internal insurer is liable to pay the compensation. Therefore, prayed to allow the petition as sought for.
3. In response to the due service of notice, respondent put its appearance through its counsel and filed its statement of objections denying the petition averments. It has specifically contended that the (SCCH-15) 3 MVC.5563/2014 maximum income limit under Section 163A of MV Act is Rs.40,000/- p.a. But as per the petition averments, the monthly income of the petitioner is Rs.15,000/- p.m. which exceeds the income limit specified in Section 163A of MV Act. Therefore, the present petition is not maintainable.
b) It has also contended that as on the date of accident the bus driver was proceeding at the accident spot carefully and cautiously, but the rider of motor cycle who was carrying two pillion riders, all of a sudden came with high speed in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite direction and to avoid the lorry which was going in front of the bus dashed to the front right bumper of the bus and caused damages to the bus.
c) It is also its case that after the accident both the rider and another pillion rider ran away from the spot and the petitioner fell down. On account of pure humanitarian consideration, its driver called 108 Ambulance and sent to the injured petitioner to Narendra Hospital, Kolar.
(SCCH-15) 4 MVC.5563/2014
d) It has also contended that the accident took place solely due to the negligent riding of the motor cyclist, despite of that to grab some compensation from the respondent somehow, petitioner has come with the present claim petition. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the petition against it with costs.
4. Subsequently, petitioner got amended his income restricting to Rs.40,000/- p.a. because of which respondent has field its additional statement of objection to the main petition contending that only in order to bring the present petition within the limits of Section 163A of MV Act, petitioner got amended his petition with regard to his income at Rs.40,000/- p.a. and it appears that the income pleaded by the petitioner earlier is correct one. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition against it with costs.
5. On the above said pleadings of the parties, this Tribunal has framed the following issues.
1. Whether petitioner proves that he has sustained injury in RTA alleged to have been occurred on 27.03.2014 at about 06:55 p.m. near Mettubande Village, on Kolar -
(SCCH-15) 5 MVC.5563/2014Bengaluru NH-75 road (old NH-4), Kolar Taluk and District arising out of use of KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-
07 F-1637 and Dream Yuga motor cycle bearing No.KA-07 V-4070?
2. Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what amount?
3. What order or award?
6. To prove the above said issues and to substantiate their respective contentions, petitioner himself has entered into witness box as PW-1. He got exhibited 9 documents and closed his side. Per contra, respondent got examined its driver as RW-1 and no document is exhibited and closed its side. Heard both the sides on merits of the case and perused the record.
7. At this stage, it is found that even petitioner has contended that the accident took place out of the use of KSRTC bus, due to oversight, both the vehicles are taken into consideration in issue No.1. Therefore, the other vehicle is strike off from the issue. Accordingly, now the issue No.1 remained as;
Whether petitioner proves that he has sustained injury in RTA alleged to have been occurred on 27.03.2014 at about 06:55 p.m. (SCCH-15) 6 MVC.5563/2014 near Mettubande Village, on Kolar -
Bengaluru NH-75 road (old NH-4), Kolar Taluk and District arising out of use of KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-
07 F-1637?
8. Counsel for petitioner has submitted that he has no further evidence to lead and further arguments to address. Since, striking of the other vehicle number in issue No.1 is a technical aspect and moreover, both the parties contested the matter on merits keeping in mind that it is the contention of petitioner that he has suffered injuries out of the use of KSRTC bus, no further opportunity is given to respondent to adduce its further evidence if any or to address its further arguments if any. Perused the record.
9. Now the findings of this Tribunal on the above said issues are answered in the;
1. Issue No.1: Negative.
2. Issue No.2: Does not survive for consideration.
3. Issue No.3: As per final order for the following reasons.
(SCCH-15) 7 MVC.5563/2014REASONS
10. ISSUE No.1:- There is no dispute between the parties with regard to the alleged accident; the date, time and place of accident; driver of the bus and the rider of two wheeler as well as fact that petitioner was one of the two pillion riders on the motor cycle at the time of accident.
11. The only dispute raised on behalf of respondent is that the accident took place because of the negligent riding of the motor cyclist and despite of that to get some compensation somehow from it, petitioner has come up with the present application under Section 163A of MV Act.
12. Since, admittedly the present petition is filed under Section 163A of MV Act, there is no question of considering the negligent aspect. To entertain the application under Section 163A of MV Act, this Tribunal is required to consider the fact that whether the accident took place out of the use of the vehicle and so far the present case as per the pleadings of the parties, particularly the petitioner, out of the use of KSRTC bus. (SCCH-15) 8 MVC.5563/2014
13. To establish their respective contentions, as observed above, petitioner himself has put his appearance in the witness box as PW-1. He has filed his affidavit evidence wherein he has reiterated the petition averments. Strangely he has deposed in his cross- examination that the accident is because of the sole negligence of the bus driver.
14. Per contra, respondent got examined its driver as RW-1 who has filed his affidavit evidence wherein he has reiterated the statement of objections averments of the respondent and specifically deposed that the accident is because of the negligent riding of the motor cyclist.
15. As observed above, there is no dispute between the parties with regard to the accident and the involvement of the bus in the accident. But it is important to note that it is not the case of petitioner that the accident took place during the use of respondent's KSRTC bus. Of course, the KSRTC bus is involved in the accident. But it is evident on record that it is only due to the negligent hitting of motor cyclist to the bus. (SCCH-15) 9 MVC.5563/2014
16. Moreover, to establish his case petitioner apart from his oral evidence has produced police papers i.e. true copies of FIR with complaint, spot mahazar, seizer mahazar, MV reports and charge sheet respectively at Ex.P-1 to 5.
17. The police papers clearly reveal that initially the jurisdictional police registered the criminal case against the motor cyclist for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 337 of IPC and after the investigation they have charge sheeted the motor cyclist for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 338 of IPC as well as Section 3 read with Section 181 and 187 of MV Act.
18. It is also admitted by the petitioner in his cross- examination that it is the motor cyclist who is charge sheeted for the present accident. Therefore, there is nothing on record to disbelieve the police papers. However, in view of the present petition is filed under Section 163A of MV Act, there is no question of considering the negligent aspect.
(SCCH-15) 10 MVC.5563/2014
19. But, petitioner has failed to establish that the present accident is arisen out of the use of KSRTC bus since admittedly, the petitioner was not inmate of the bus and it is evident on record that too by the police papers which are admittedly produced by the petitioner himself that the bus was proceeding on its way and it is the motor cyclist who proceeded and hit the bus. So, in fact, so far the present accident, the bus was not in use at the time of accident in terms of the definition of "use of motor vehicle" as envisaged in Section 163A of MV Act.
20. If the pleadings and the evidence on record are taken note off, it appears that petitioner had a good case under Section 166 of MV Act against the RC owner and the insurer of the motor cycle, but for the reasons best known to him, he has come with the present petition under Section 163A of MV Act that too against KSRTC only.
21. However, in view of framing this issue involving both the vehicles which is not objected by any of the parties, even petitioner has failed to prove that he has (SCCH-15) 11 MVC.5563/2014 suffered injuries out of the use of KSRTC bus. Hence, this issue is an answered in negative.
22. ISSUE No.2:- In view of answering issue No.1 in negative, this issue does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, this issue is answered.
23. ISSUE No.3:- From the above discussions, this Tribunal proceeds to pass the following order.
ORDER The present petition filed by the petitioner under Section 163A of MV Act is hereby dismissed.
Parties are directed to bear the cost of the present petition on their own.
Draw a decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced in the open Court by me on this 27th day of January, 2016.) (K.KATYAYINI), XIII Addl. Judge & Member MACT Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
PW1: Nagesh C.R. (SCCH-15) 12 MVC.5563/2014 LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS:
RW1 : Gopal.T. LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
Ex.P1 : True copy of FIR with Complaint, Ex.P2 : True copy of spot mahazar, Ex.P3 : True copy of seizer mahazar, Ex.P4 : True copy of MV reports (2 in nos.), Ex.P5 : True copy of charge sheet, Ex.P6 : True copy of wound certificate, Ex.P7 : Discharge summary, Ex.P8 : Hospital and medical bills (5 in nos.) amounting to Rs.67,503/-, Ex.P9 : Prescriptions (2 in nos.) LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS:
- Nil -
(K.KATYAYINI), XIII Addl. Judge & Member MACT Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.