Bangalore District Court
Sri.M.Kumar vs In All Cases on 12 April, 2022
SCCH-11 1 MVC.No.1257/2019 C/w.
728/2019 & ECA.24/2019
KABC020058252019
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE. (SCCH-11)
DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF APRIL-2022
PRESENT: SRI.RAGHAVENDRA.D, B.COM, LL.B.
I ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & MACT
MVC No.1257/2019 C/w MVC No.728/2019
& ECA No.24/2019
(1) IN MVC No.1257/2019
PETITIONER : Sri.M.Kumar,
S/o.Muniswamy,
Aged about 35 years,
No.16, Thigalarapalya Colony,
Near Sollapuradamma Temple,
Bengaluru - 560 058.
(2) IN MVC No.728/2019
PETITIONER : Smt.Saraswathi,
W/o.Kumar,
Aged about 38 years,
R/at No: 315, Tagalarapalya,
Bengaluru North,
Bengaluru - 560 058.
(3) IN ECA No.24/2019
PETITIONER : Sri.Sriram.N.,
S/o.Narayanaswamy,
SCCH-11 2 MVC.No.1257/2019 C/w.
728/2019 & ECA.24/2019
Aged about 38 years,
No.94, Near Solapuradamma
Temple, Thigalarapalya,
Bengaluru North Taluk.
(By - Sri.K.N.Channappa, Adv.)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS IN ALL CASES:
1. Sri.Mahadeva,
S/o.Choodaiah,
No.9, Panchalingeshwara Nilaya,
Yalachenahalli, Kashinagar,
Shanthi Industries Road,
Bengaluru - 560 078
Owner of Toyota Etios Car
bearing Regn.No.KA-05-AF-8705.
2. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance
Co., Ltd., Golden Heights, 4th Floor,
No.1/2, 5th 'C' Cross,
4th M Block, Rajajinagar,
Bengaluru - 560 010.
Policy No.OG-19-1701-1803-
00004723 Valid from
23.05.2018 to 22.05.2019.
(R.1 - by Smt.D.Sowbhagya, Adv.)
(R.2 - by Smt.R.Sharadamba, Adv.).
COMMON - JUDGMENT
The petitioners have filed petitions under Sec.166 of Motor
Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- in
MVC.No.1257/19 for the injuries sustained by the petitioner and
Rs.50,00,000/- in MVC.No.728/19 for the death of Sri.Sunil
SCCH-11 3 MVC.No.1257/2019 C/w.
728/2019 & ECA.24/2019
Kumar.K, S/o.Kumar and petition filed by the petitioner in
ECA.No.24/2019 U/s.22 of Workmen Compensation Act 1923
claiming compensation amount from the respondents to the
tune of Rs.15,00,000/- along with interest in respect of injuries
sustained by Sriram.N on 31.12.2018 while on duty with the
respondent No.1.
2. The brief case of the petitioners in all three
cases are that on 01.01.2019 at about 1.30 a.m., the
petitioner in ECA.No.24/2019 was riding Toyota Etios Car bearing
Regn.No.KA-05-AF-8705 along with other inmates in
MVC.No.1257/19 & MVC.No.728/19, when they reached near
Jogihalli, NH-48, Sira-Tumkur Road, Kallambella Hobli, Sira Taluk
driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high
speed and ran on road divider and dashed to opposite vehicle
Maruthi Swift Dzire Car bearing Regn.No.KA-34-N-3965. Due to
which, passengers and driver of offending care sustained injuries
and deceased in MVC.No.728/19 died on the way to hospital and
deceased was shifted to District Hospital, Tumkuru, wherein
postmortem was conducted and body was shifted to native
place to perform funeral and obsequies ceremonies for which
they have spent Rs.1,00,000/-. Immediately, the petitioners
SCCH-11 4 MVC.No.1257/2019 C/w.
728/2019 & ECA.24/2019
were shifted to Govt. Hospital, Tumkur and then the petitioner in
MVC.No.1257/19 shifted to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, Bengaluru
and the petitioner in ECA.No.24/2019 shifted to M.S.Ramaiah
Hospital, Bengaluru, wherein they were taken treatment as an
inpatient. The petitioners have spent Rs.3,00,000/- in
MVC.No.1257/19 and Rs.1,00,000/- in ECA.No.24/2019 towards
medical and other expenses.
Prior to the accident, the petitioner in MVC.No.1257/19 was
hale and healthy and was doing coolie work and earning a sum
of Rs.20,000/- per month. The deceased in MVC.No.728/19 and
petitioner in ECA.No.24/19 were working as drivers.
The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of
Toyota Etios Car bearing Regn.No.KA-05-AF-8705 by its driver.
The respondents being the owner and insurer of the offending
vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to
petitioners. As such they have prayed compensation with future
interest from the respondents.
3. In pursuance of notices, both the respondents have
appeared before the court and filed their respective written
statements.
SCCH-11 5 MVC.No.1257/2019 C/w.
728/2019 & ECA.24/2019
4. In written statement, the respondent No.1 has denied
the contents of claim petition specifically and categorically. He
has denied age, occupation and income of deceased. He has
also denied the place, time and manner of accident. Further
contended that the respondent No.1 is the owner of Toyota Etios
bearing No.KA-05-AF-8705 and at the time of accident, the driver
of said vehicle was having valid and effective driving license to
drive the said vehicle. Further the respondent No.1 has insured
the Toyota Etios with 2nd respondent and that the policy was in
force as on the date of accident. The amount claimed by the
petitioners is highly exorbitant. Hence, he has prayed to dismiss
the petitions.
5. In written statement, the 2nd respondent has
admitted the issuance of policy in respect Car Toyota Etios
bearing Regn.No.KA-05-AF-8705 owned by the 1st respondent in
Policy No.OG-19-1701-1803-00004723 valid from 23.05.2018 to
22.05.2019 midnight and the liability if any is subject to the
terms and conditions of policy. Further contended that the
charge sheeted driver by name Sri.Sriram was not at all driving
the insured vehicle at the time of accident and not caused any
accident at any point of time and deceased sunil kumar himself
SCCH-11 6 MVC.No.1257/2019 C/w.
728/2019 & ECA.24/2019
was driving the insured vehicle and he was not at all having
valid and effective driving license to drive the car. Further the
said vehicle being a commercial vehicle the same was not
holding valid permit, fitness certificate to ply on road. The
amount claimed by the petitioners is highly exorbitant. Hence,
he has prayed to dismiss the petitions.
6. On the basis of the above pleadings, my learned
predecessor in office has framed the following:
ISSUES IN MVC.No.1257/2019
1. Whether petitioner proves that, he sustained
grievous injuries in the accident occurred on
01.01.2019 at about 01.30 a.m., near Jogihalli,
Sira-Tumakuru NH-48 Road, Kallambella Hobli, Sira
Taluk, while he was proceeding in a Toyota Etios
Car bearing registration No.KA-05-AF-8705, due to
the rash and negligent driving of the above said
car by its driver?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation
as prayed in the claim petition? If so, what is the
quantum of compensation and from whom?
3. What order or Award?
SCCH-11 7 MVC.No.1257/2019 C/w.
728/2019 & ECA.24/2019
ISSUES IN MVC.No.728/2019
1. Whether the petitioner proves that she is the legal
representative of the deceased?
2. Whether the petitioner proves that Sunil Kumar.K,
S/o.Kumar died due to injuries sustained by him in
an accident occurred on 01.01.2019 at about 01.30
a.m., near Jogihalli, Sira-Tumkur NH-48 Road,
Kallambella Hobli, Sira Taluk, Tumkur District,
arising due to rash and negligent driving of driver
of Etios Car bearing No.KA-05-AF-8705?
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
4. What order or Award?
ISSUES IN ECA.No.24/2019
1. Whether petitioner proves that, he was working as
a driver in the Toyota Etios Car bearing registration
No.KA-05-AF-8705 which belongs to respondent
No.1. As per the instructions of respondent No.1
he was driving a Toyota Etios Car bearing
registration No.KA-05-AF-8705 on 01.01.2019 at
about 1.30 a.m., NH-48, Sira-Tumakuru Road,
Kallambella Hobli, Sira Taluk, he has lost control
over the vehicle and ran on the road divider and
again dashed to opposite vehicle?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation
as prayed in the claim petition? If so, what is the
quantum of compensation and from whom?
3. What order or Award?
SCCH-11 8 MVC.No.1257/2019 C/w.
728/2019 & ECA.24/2019
7. Since all the cases arose out of one and same
accident, all the cases have been clubbed as per order dated
14.11.2019 & 19.02.2020 and common evidence was led in
MVC.No.1257/2019.
8. In order to prove their case, the petitioner in
MVC.No.1257/19 & ECA.No.24/2019 got examined as PW.1 & 2
and Medical Record Attendant examined as PW.3. The
petitioner/mother of deceased in MVC.No.728/19 got examined
as PW.4. Dr.Prakashappa.T.H in MVC.No.1527/19 examined as
PW.5 and Dr.Nagaraj.B.N in ECA.No.24/2019 examined as PW.6
and got marked documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.36 and closed their
side of evidence. In order to disprove the case of petitioner,
respondent insurance company summoned Medical Record
Technician and examined as RW.1, Technical Director examined
as RW.2. The Senior Executive Legal got examined as RW.3 and
1st respondent got examined as RW.4 and got marked
documents at Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.20 and closed their side of
evidence.
9. I have heard arguments on both side and perused the
materials available on records. The learned counsel for
SCCH-11 9 MVC.No.1257/2019 C/w.
728/2019 & ECA.24/2019
respondent No.2 has filed written arguments. I have carefully
perused the written arguments filed by the respondent No.2.
10. My findings on the above issues in both MVC cases
are as follows:
Issue No.1 in MVC No.728/19 : Does Not Survive for
consideration
Issue No.1 in MVC.No.1257/19
& Issue No.2 in MVC.No.728/19: In the Negative
Issue No.2 in MVC.No.1257/19 &
Issue No.3 in MVC.No.728/19: In the Negative
Issue No.3 in MVC.No.1257/19
& Issue No.4 in MVC.No.728/19: As per final order for
following:
11. My findings on the above issues in ECA case are as
follows:
Issue No.1 : In the Negative
Issue No.2 : In the Negative
Issue No.3 : As per final order for the following:
REASONS
12. Issue No.1 in MVC.No.1257/19, Issue No.2 in
MVC.No.728/2019 and Issue No.1 in ECA.No.24/2019:- It is
the case of the petitioners that when the driver by name Sri.
Sriram was driving his Toyota Etios Car bearing No.KA-05-AF-
8705 at about 1.30 a.m., on 01.01.2019, they met with an
SCCH-11 10 MVC.No.1257/2019 C/w.
728/2019 & ECA.24/2019
accident and in the said accident one Sri.Sunil Kumar.K
succumbed to the injuries and the petitioner in
MVC.No.1257/2019 - Sri.M.Kumar and Sri. Sriram in
ECA.No.24/2019 sustained grievous injuries.
13. In order to prove accident, the petitioner in
MVC.No.1257/2019 examined as PW.1. In his chief examination,
he has deposed that due to rash and negligent driving of driver
of car the accident occurred. PW.1 in his cross examination, he
has deposed that lorry which was going on the left side of car try
to ran over the car, the driver of car to avoid the accident
dashed against the road divider. Further in his cross examination
deposed that one Sunil Kumar succumbed to the injuries and
driver of car sustained injuries. The driver of car also examined
before the tribunal as PW.2, he has also deposed that he was
driving the car at the time of accident and he lost control over
the vehicle and ran over the road divider and dashed against the
opposite vehicle and he sustained injuries. In his cross
examination he has deposed that, his car was moving at the
speed of 50 to 60 km per hour, one lorry was going ahead of him
and due to mist he lost control on his vehicle and dashed
against the road divider. Further in his cross examination, he has
SCCH-11 11 MVC.No.1257/2019 C/w.
728/2019 & ECA.24/2019
deposed that himself and kumar sustained grievous injuries and
Sunil Kumar succumbed to the injuries on spot. On perusal of
cross examination of PW.1 and PW.2 there is contradiction
regarding cause of accident. Further in order to prove accident,
the petitioners have produced Ex.P.2 Statement of injured by
name Madhu recorded by police in the presence of doctor on
01.01.2019. On perusal of Ex.P.2, he was driving Maruthi Swift
Dzire Car bearing Regn.No.KA-34-N-3965. Further he has stated
that at about 1.30 a.m., after Karejeevanahalli Toll, the driver of
Toyota Etios car drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent
manner and crossed the road divider and dashed against his car.
On the basis of Ex.P.2, the police have registered the case as per
Ex.P.1 and after registering the case police went near place of
accident and drew up mahazar and sketch as per Ex.P.3 & 4. On
perusal of both the documents, the police have stated that the
Toyota Etios Car bearing Regn.No.KA-05-AF-8705 dashed against
the road divider and crossed over the road divider and dashed to
the another moving car. So, as per Mahazar and Sketch, it
shows that there was no negligence on the part of driver of
Maruthi Swift Dzire Car bearing Regn.No.KA-34-N-3965. The
petitioners have also produced hospital documents. On perusal
SCCH-11 12 MVC.No.1257/2019 C/w.
728/2019 & ECA.24/2019
of hospital documents, it is stated that the injured persons
sustained injuries due to road traffic accident. Further on perusal
of hospital documents immediately after the accident they were
shifted to hospital for treatment. After investigation police have
filed charge sheet against the driver of car by name Sri. Sriram
for the offence punishable U/s.279, 337, 338 & 304(A) of IPC.
So, on meticulous perusal of oral and documentary evidence
placed by the petitioners, it is crystal clear that the accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Toyota
Etios Car bearing Regn.No.KA-05-AF-8705.
14. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 has filed
written arguments and in the written arguments, it is stated that
at the time of accident Sri.Sriram was not on wheels and
deceased Sunil Kumar was driving the said car. As per sketch,
the said road runs from Sira to Tumkuru and Tumkuru to Sira, the
alleged driver Sri.Sriram who went to right side and dashed
against the divider and went towards other side of the road and
dashed against the car which was coming from Sira to Tumkur.
As per Panchanama and IMV Report it is clear that Car bearing
No.KA-05-AF-8705 in which the petitioners were travelling is
SCCH-11 13 MVC.No.1257/2019 C/w.
728/2019 & ECA.24/2019
damaged on the front right portion of the body which runs
towards driver door, it is hard to believe that despite of the said
damages the alleged driver sustained only injuries and sunil who
was alleged to be seated next to driver, suffered grievous
injuries and succumbed to the said injuries.
15. In order to prove the contention of the respondent
insurance company, they have produced Ex.R.11 -
Reconstruction/Injury Analysis Report prepared by one Mr.Sanjiv
Dwivedi. In the said report it is stated that after analysing the
photographs and after scientific examination they came to
conclusion that one Sunil Kumar seated in the driver seat of the
car at the time of crash. Further they came to conclusion that
Mr.Sriram and Mr.Kumar are most likely seated in the rear seat
of the car at the time of crash. In order to prove Ex.R.11 Report,
respondent No.2 examined one Sri.Ravishankar Rajaraman,
Technical Director in J.P.Research India Pvt. Ltd., as RW.2. In his
chief examination, he has reiterated the contents of Ex.R.11 and
in his cross examination he has deposed that he has answered
the questions raised by the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance
Company Limited. Further he has deposed that on the basis of
Photographs and information given by Bajaj Allianz General
SCCH-11 14 MVC.No.1257/2019 C/w.
728/2019 & ECA.24/2019
Insurance Company Limited, they have prepared a report.
Further deposed that they have not examined the genuineness
of the photographs produced by insurance company. Further he
has deposed that on the basis of photographs, he has prepared
report. On meticulous perusal of cross examination of RW.2, he
has prepared the report on the basis of photographs and
information provided by the insurance company. According to
RW.2, Sriram was not on driver seat and one Mr.Sunil was most
likely to be seated in the driver seat of car. On perusal of entire
Ex.R.11 and evidence of RW.2, it shows that on the basis of
assumptions and presumptions and by using technology RW.2
came to conclusion that Sri.Sriram was not on the driver seat
and one Sunil was on the driver seat at the time of accident.
16. This tribunal already held that there is contradiction
in evidence of PW.1 & 2 regarding cause of accident. Further on
perusal of Ex.P.2 statement of injured Madhu, he has stated that
he came to know that Sri.Sriram Thigalarapalya - Bengaluru was
driving Toyota Etios Car bearing Regn.No.KA-05-AF-8705. Ex.P.2
Statement was recorded by head constable in hospital while
injured was taking treatment. On perusal of entire documents,
the injured i.e., Madhu @ Mahadevappa was stranger to the
SCCH-11 15 MVC.No.1257/2019 C/w.
728/2019 & ECA.24/2019
incident he came from the side of Sira towards Bengaluru and
immediately he was shifted to hospital, then how could he came
to know the name of driver of offending vehicle. On meticulous
perusal of Ex.P.2, it appears that there is suspicious regarding
saying the name of driver of car.
17. PW.2 said to be the driver of Toyota Etios Car bearing
Regn.No.KA-05-AF-8705, he has deposed in his cross
examination that there was an agreement on 22.09.2018
between himself and Mahadev to attach the car to Uber
company. Further he has admitted that he has agreed to pay
loan on monthly installments of Rs15,600/-. Further he has
admitted that he has attached the car to Uber Company. Further
he has admitted that owner should attach the vehicle to Uber
Company. Further in his cross examination, he has admitted
that he has attached car as if he is the owner of car. RW.4 has
deposed that he has send car for rent of Rs.10 per kilo meter
and driver was collecting the money and Sri.Sriram was working
with him as a driver from last one year. Further in his cross
examination, he has deposed that there is no agreement
between himself and Sri.Sriram. Further he has deposed that he
has attached his vehicle to Uber Company. Further he has
SCCH-11 16 MVC.No.1257/2019 C/w.
728/2019 & ECA.24/2019
deposed that Sri.Sriram himself attached the car to Uber
company. Further in his cross examination, he has deposed that
Uber Company crediting money directly to the bank account of
Sriram. On meticulous perusal of cross examination of PW.2 and
RW.4, it clearly shows that there was an agreement between
Sriram and owner of vehicle i.e., RW.4 and the said car was
attached to Uber company and Uber company was directly
transferring the money to the bank account of Sriram. So, on
perusal of oral evidence, it shows that though the vehicle was in
the name of Mahadevappa i.e., RW.4, but PW.2 Sriram attached
the car to the uber company as a owner. So, it appears that
Sri.Sriram was not working as a driver under Mahadev. So, the
oral evidence of PW.2 & RW.4 clearly demonstrate that there was
no relationship of employer and employee between the
Mahadev and Sriram.
18. PW.2 in his cross examination deposed that, he
picked up 4 persons at 2nd stage of peenya and including
himself five persons travelling in car. Further he deposed that
one Kumar, Sunil, Srinivas and Ramesh were in his car. PW.4
Smt.Saraswathi mother of deceased Sunil, she has deposed in
SCCH-11 17 MVC.No.1257/2019 C/w.
728/2019 & ECA.24/2019
her cross examination that her son was working as a driver with
Sriram from last 2-3 years and he was paying monthly salary of
Rs.25,000/-. When Sunil was working as a driver with Sriram,
how he pick up him at Peenya 2nd Stage as customer to go to
temple near Chitradurga. On perusal of cross examination of
PW.4, the evidence of PW.2 is not acceptable that the four
person, who were all travelling in car as passengers.
19. It is the case of respondent insurance company that
Sri.Sriram was not driving the car at the time of accident, one
Sunil was driving the car. In support of their contention, they
have produced Ex.R.11 - Reconstruction Injury Analysis Report.
In order to prove the Ex.R.11, they have examined RW.2
Sri.Ravishankar Rajaraman, Technical Director of J.P.Research
India Pvt. Ltd. According to his report and oral evidence of one
Sunil was driving the car at the time of accident. Now, on
perusal of cross examination of PW.4, she has deposed that her
son Sunil was working with the Sri.Sriram as a driver from last 2-
3 years and he was paying Rs.25,000/- monthly salary. Usually
when there was a driver, the driver will drive the car, but not
owner. So, the evidence of RW.2 and Ex.R.11 corroborates with
SCCH-11 18 MVC.No.1257/2019 C/w.
728/2019 & ECA.24/2019
the evidence of PW.4. So, I am of the opinion that the evidence
of PW.4 corroborates the Ex.R.11 Report prepared by RW.2. By
analyzing Ex.R.11 and evidence of PW.4, it can presume that
Sunil was driving the car at the time of accident. So, on
meticulous perusal of entire oral and documentary evidence
placed by both the parties, it shows that the petitioner in
ECA.No.24/2019 by name Sriram was not driving the car at the
time of accident and one Sunil was driving the car at the time of
accident. So, the petitioners in all cases have failed to prove
that the driver by name Sriram was driving the car in a rash and
negligent manner and caused the accident. Hence, I
answered Issue No.1 in MVC.No.1257/19, Issue No.2 in
MVC.No.728/2019 and Issue No.1 in ECA.No.24/2019 in
the Negative.
20. Issue No.1 in MVC.No.728/2019:- In view of
answering Issue No.2, this issue does not survive for
consideration.
21. Issue No.2 in MVC.No.1257/19, Issue No.3 in
MVC.No.728/2019 and Issue No.2 in ECA.No.24/2019:- In
view of answering Issue No.1 in MVC.No.1257/19, Issue No.2 in
SCCH-11 19 MVC.No.1257/2019 C/w.
728/2019 & ECA.24/2019
MVC.No.728/19 and Issue No.1 in ECA.No.24/2019 in Negative,
the petitioners are not entitled for compensation as prayed.
22. Issue No.3 in MVC.No.1257/19 and Issue No.4 in
MVC.No.728/19 and Issue No.3 in ECA.No.24/2019: For the
forgoing reasons and in view of the above discussion, I proceed
to pass the following:
ORDER
In MVC No.1257 of 2019 The claim petition filed by the petitioner Under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby dismissed.
No order on cost.
ORDER In MVC No.728 of 2019 The claim petition filed by the petitioner Under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby dismissed.
No order on cost.
ORDER In ECA No.24 of 2019 SCCH-11 20 MVC.No.1257/2019 C/w. 728/2019 & ECA.24/2019 The petition filed by the petitioner U/s.22 of the Employees Compensation Act is hereby dismissed.
No order on cost.
Draw awards accordingly. The original Judgment shall be kept in MVC.No.1257/2019.
The office is directed to keep an authenticate copy of this judgment in MVC.No.1257/2019. (Dictated to the stenographer over computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this 12th day of April, 2022.) (D.RAGHAVENDRA) I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACMM ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER/S:
P.W.1 : SRI.M.KUMAR
PW.2 : SRI.RAM.N
PW.3 : SRI.MARIYAPPA
PW.4 : SMT.SARASWATHI
PW.5 : DR.PRAKASHAPPA.T.H
PW.6 : DR.NAGARAJ.B.N
SCCH-11 21 MVC.No.1257/2019 C/w.
728/2019 & ECA.24/2019 LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER/S:
Ex.P.1 : FIR Ex.P.2 : Statement of Injured Ex.P.3 : Spot Mahazar Ex.P.4 : Sketch Ex.P.5 : IMV Report Ex.P.6 : Wound Certificate Ex.P.7 : Charge Sheet Ex.P.8 : OPD Book Ex.P.9 : Emergency Case Record of NIMHANS
Ex.P.10 : Lab reports (3 in nos.) Ex.P.11 : Notarized copy of Aadhaar Card Ex.P.12 : Prescriptions (4 in nos.) Ex.P.13 : Medical Bills (28 in nos.) for Rs.35,933/- Ex.P.14 : Wound Certificate Ex.P.15 : Discharge Summary Ex.P.16 : Notarized copy of Aadhaar Card Ex.P.17 : Prescriptions (13 in nos.) Ex.P.18 : Medical Bills (24 in nos.) for Rs.32,740/- Ex.P.19 : Case sheet Ex.P.20 : Prescriptions (4 in nos.) Ex.P.21 : X-rays (3 in nos.) Ex.P.22 : C.T.Films - 9 in nos. Ex.P.23 : Notarized copy of DL Ex.P.24 : Authorization Letter Ex.P.25 : Attested copy of MLC Register Extract Ex.P.26 : Inpatient Record SCCH-11 22 MVC.No.1257/2019 C/w. 728/2019 & ECA.24/2019 Ex.P.27 : Outpatient Record Ex.P.28 : Post Mortem Ex.P.29 : Inquest Ex.P.30 : Notarized Copy of Ration Card Ex.P.31 : Notarized copy of ID Card Ex.P.32 : Notarized copy of DL of deceased Ex.P.33 : Case Sheet Ex.P.34 : X-ray film Ex.P.35 : Clinical Report Ex.P.36 : X-ray LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS:
RW.1 : Sri.Srinivas.B.B RW.2 : Sri.Ravishankar Rajaraman RW.3 : Sri.Chaitresh.D.Habbu RW.4 : Sri.Mahadeva LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS:
Ex.R.1 Authorization Letter Ex.R.2 Attested copy of MLC Extract Ex.R.3 Attested copy of Police Intimation Ex.R.4 Inpatient Records Ex.R.5 Authorization Letter Ex.R.6 Certified copy of MLC Extract Ex.R.7 Certified copy of Discharge Summary Ex.R.8 Inpatient records Ex.R.9 X-ray SCCH-11 23 MVC.No.1257/2019 C/w. 728/2019 & ECA.24/2019 Ex.R.10 Notarized copy of ID Card Ex.R.11 Reconstruction Injury Analysis Report Ex.R.12 Authorization letter Ex.R.13 Policy copy Ex.R.14 Notarized copy of Aadhaar Card Ex.R.15 Notarized copy of RC Book Ex.R.16 & 17 Two B-Register Extract Ex.R.18 Form No.42 Ex.R.19 Attested copy of Policy Ex.R.20 Receipt issued by Transport Authority I ADDL.SCJ. & MACT.SCCH-11 24 MVC.No.1257/2019 C/w.
728/2019 & ECA.24/2019 (Judgment pronounced in open court.) ORDER In MVC No.1257 of 2019 The claim petition filed by the petitioner Under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby dismissed.
No order on cost.
Draw award accordingly.
The original Judgment shall be kept in MVC.No.1257/2019.
The office is directed to keep an authenticate copy of this judgment in MVC.No.1257/2019.
I ADDL.S C J & ACMM SCCH-11 25 MVC.No.1257/2019 C/w. 728/2019 & ECA.24/2019 (Judgment pronounced in open court.) ORDER In MVC No.728 of 2019 The claim petition filed by the petitioner Under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby dismissed.
No order on cost.
Draw award accordingly.
The original Judgment shall be kept in MVC.No.1257/2019.
The office is directed to keep an authenticate copy of this judgment in MVC.No.1257/2019.
I ADDL.S C J & ACMM SCCH-11 26 MVC.No.1257/2019 C/w. 728/2019 & ECA.24/2019 (Judgment pronounced in open court.) ORDER In ECA No.24 of 2019 The petition filed by the petitioners U/s.22 of the Employees Compensation Act is hereby dismissed.
No order on cost.
Draw award accordingly.
The original Judgment shall be kept in MVC.No.1257/2019.
The office is directed to keep an authenticate copy of this judgment in MVC.No.1257/2019.
I ADDL.S C J & ACMM SCCH-11 27 MVC.No.1257/2019 C/w. 728/2019 & ECA.24/2019 AWARD SCCH NO.11 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA : BANGALORE CITY MVC No.1257/2019 PETITIONER : Sri.M.Kumar, S/o.Muniswamy, Aged about 35 years, No.16, Thigalarapalya Colony, Near Sollapuradamma Temple, Bengaluru - 560 058.
(By - Sri.K.N.Channappa, Adv.) Vs. RESPONDENTS:
1. Sri.Mahadeva, S/o.Choodaiah, No.9, Panchalingeshwara Nilaya, Yalachenahalli, Kashinagar, Shanthi Industries Road, Bengaluru - 560 078 Owner of Toyota Etios Car bearing Regn.No.KA-05-AF-8705.
2. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co., Ltd., Golden Heights, 4th Floor, No.1/2, 5th 'C' Cross, 4th M Block, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru - 560 010.
Policy No.OG-19-1701-1803- 00004723 Valid from 23.05.2018 to 22.05.2019. (R.1 - by Smt.D.Sowbhagya, Adv.) SCCH-11 28 MVC.No.1257/2019 C/w. 728/2019 & ECA.24/2019 (R.2 - by Smt.R.Sharadamba, Adv.). WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the petitioner/s above named U/sec.166 of the M.V.C. Act, praying for the compensation of Rs. (Rupees ) for the injuries sustained by the petitioner/Death of in a Motor Accident by Vehicle WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before Sri.D.Raghavendra, I Addl. Judge, Member, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. Advocate for respondent ORDER The claim petition filed by the petitioner Under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby dismissed.
No order on cost.
SCCH-11 29 MVC.No.1257/2019 C/w.
728/2019 & ECA.24/2019 The original Judgment shall be kept in MVC.No.1257/2019.
The office is directed to keep an authenticate copy of this judgment in MVC.No.1257/2019. Given under my hand and seal of the Court this 12 th day of April 2022.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: BANGALORE.
By the
Petitioner/s Respondent/s
No.1 No.2
Court fee paid on Petition 10-00
Process
Pleaders Fee
Total Rs.
Decree drafted Scrutinized by
Decree Clerk Sheristedar
MEMBER, MACT,
METROPOLITAN AREA: B'LORE SCCH-11 30 MVC.No.1257/2019 C/w. 728/2019 & ECA.24/2019 AWARD SCCH NO.11 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA : BANGALORE CITY MVC No.728/2019 PETITIONER : Smt.Saraswathi, W/o.Kumar, Aged about 38 years, R/at No: 315, Tagalarapalya, Bengaluru North, Bengaluru - 560 058.
(By - Sri.K.N.Channappa, Adv.) Vs. RESPONDENTS:
1. Sri.Mahadeva, S/o.Choodaiah, No.9, Panchalingeshwara Nilaya, Yalachenahalli, Kashinagar, Shanthi Industries Road, Bengaluru - 560 078 Owner of Toyota Etios Car bearing Regn.No.KA-05-AF-8705.
2. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co., Ltd., Golden Heights, 4th Floor, No.1/2, 5th 'C' Cross, 4th M Block, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru - 560 010.
Policy No.OG-19-1701-1803- 00004723 Valid from 23.05.2018 to 22.05.2019. (R.1 - by Smt.D.Sowbhagya, Adv.) SCCH-11 31 MVC.No.1257/2019 C/w. 728/2019 & ECA.24/2019 (R.2 - by Smt.R.Sharadamba, Adv.). WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the petitioner/s above named U/sec.166 of the M.V.C. Act, praying for the compensation of Rs. (Rupees ) for the injuries sustained by the petitioner/Death of in a Motor Accident by Vehicle No WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before Sri.D.Raghavendra, I Addl. Judge, Member, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. Advocate for respondent.
ORDER The claim petition filed by the petitioner Under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby dismissed.
No order on cost.
SCCH-11 32 MVC.No.1257/2019 C/w.
728/2019 & ECA.24/2019 The original Judgment shall be kept in MVC.No.1257/2019.
The office is directed to keep an authenticate copy of this judgment in MVC.No.1257/2019. Given under my hand and seal of the Court this 12 th day of April 2022.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: BANGALORE.
By the
Petitioner/s Respondent/s
No.1 No.2
Court fee paid on Petition 10-00
Process
Pleaders Fee
Total Rs.
Decree drafted Scrutinized by
Decree Clerk Sheristedar
MEMBER, MACT,
METROPOLITAN AREA: B'LORE SCCH-11 33 MVC.No.1257/2019 C/w. 728/2019 & ECA.24/2019 AWARD SCCH NO.11 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA : BANGALORE CITY ECA.No.24/2019 PETITIONER : Sri.Sriram.N., S/o.Narayanaswamy, Aged about 38 years, No.94, Near Solapuradamma Temple, Thigalarapalya, Bengaluru North Taluk.
(By - Sri.K.N.Channappa, Adv.) Vs. RESPONDENTS:
1. Sri.Mahadeva, S/o.Choodaiah, No.9, Panchalingeshwara Nilaya, Yalachenahalli, Kashinagar, Shanthi Industries Road, Bengaluru - 560 078 Owner of Toyota Etios Car bearing Regn.No.KA-05-AF-8705.
2. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co., Ltd., Golden Heights, 4th Floor, No.1/2, 5th 'C' Cross, 4th M Block, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru - 560 010.
Policy No.OG-19-1701-1803- 00004723 Valid from 23.05.2018 to 22.05.2019. SCCH-11 34 MVC.No.1257/2019 C/w.
728/2019 & ECA.24/2019 (R.1 - by Smt.D.Sowbhagya, Adv.) (R.2 - by Smt.R.Sharadamba, Adv.). WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the petitioner/s above named U/sec.22 of the Workmen Compensation Act, praying for the compensation of ₹. (Rupees ) for the injuries sustained by the petitioner/Death of in a Motor Accident by Vehicle WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before Sri.D.Raghavendra, I Addl. Judge, Member, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. Advocate for respondent.
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioners U/s.22 of the Employees Compensation Act is hereby dismissed.
No order on cost.
SCCH-11 35 MVC.No.1257/2019 C/w.
728/2019 & ECA.24/2019 The original Judgment shall be kept in MVC.No.1257/2019.
The office is directed to keep an authenticate copy of this judgment in MVC.No.1257/2019. Given under my hand and seal of the Court this 12 th day of April 2022.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: BANGALORE.
By the
Petitioner/s Respondent/s
No.1 No.2
Court fee paid on 10-00
Petition
Process
Pleaders Fee
Total Rs.
Decree drafted Scrutinized by
Decree Clerk Sheristedar
MEMBER, MACT,
METROPOLITAN AREA: B'LORE