Bangalore District Court
Just To Avail Undue Advantage For His Own ... vs No on 24 August, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL. SMALL CAUSES AND ADDL.
MACT., BANGALORE, (SCCH-7)
Dated this, the 24th day of August, 2016.
PRESENT : SMT.INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR,
B.Com.,LL.B.(Spl.),LL.M.,
IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM,
Court of Small Causes,
Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
M.V.C.No.1126/2015
C/w. M.V.C.No.1127/2015
Smt. Kalavathi Bai, ..... PETITIONER IN
W/o. Narayan Rao. M.V.C.No.1126/2015
Since dead by her LRs.
1(a). Narayan Rao @ Narayan,
S/o. Late Venkoji Rao,
Aged 68 years.
1(b). Anand Rao,
S/o. Narayan Rao,
Aged 42 years.
1(c). Mohan Rao,
S/o. Narayan Rao,
Aged about 40 years.
All are residing at
No.3829, 11th Cross,
Gayathrinagar,
Bangalore.
(By Sri. B.R. Srinath, Adv.,)
SCCH-7 2 MVC.No.1126/2015
C/w MVC No.1127/2015
V/s
1. Universal Sampo General ..... RESPONDENTS IN
Insurance Company Ltd., M.V.C.No.1126/2015
No.217/A, 4th Floor,
3rd Main, Outer Ring Road,
Kasturinagar,
Bangalore - 560043.
(Insurer)
(Policy No.2314/53692603/00/000,
Valid from 21.12.2013 to 20.12.2014,
Swaraj Mazda No.KA-51-B-6228)
2. C. Renukaiah,
S/o. Chikkarangaiah,
No.11, 8th Cross,
Sharavathinagar,
Pattegarpalya,
Bangalore - 560 073.
(Insured)
(R-1 By Sri. H.N. Keshava Prashanth,
Adv.,)
(R-2 By Sri. G. Vijaya Kumar, Adv.,)
Smt. Gayathri Bai, ..... PETITIONER IN
W/o. Narayan Rao, M.V.C.No.1127/2015
Aged about 55 years,
No.3829, 6th Cross,
4th Main Road,
Subramanyanagar,
Bangalore.
(By Sri. B.R. Srinath, Adv.,)
SCCH-7 3 MVC.No.1126/2015
C/w MVC No.1127/2015
V/s
1. Universal Sampo General ..... RESPONDENTS IN
Insurance Company Ltd., M.V.C.No.1127/2015
No.217/A, 4th Floor,
3rd Main, Outer Ring Road,
Kasturinagar,
Bangalore - 560043.
(Insurer)
(Policy No.2314/53692603/00/000,
Valid from 21.12.2013 to 20.12.2014,
Swaraj Mazda No.KA-51-B-6228)
2. C. Renukaiah,
S/o. Chikkarangaiah,
No.11, 8th Cross,
Sharavathinagar,
Pattegarpalya,
Bangalore - 560 073.
(Insured)
(R-1 By Sri. H.N. Keshava Prashanth,
Adv.,)
(R-2 By Sri. G. Vijaya Kumar, Adv.,)
COMMON JUDGMENT
As per the Order dated 01.04.2016 passed on Memo in
M.V.C.No.1126/2015, M.V.C.No.1127/2015 is clubbed with the
said M.V.C.No.1126/2015 and the common evidence is recorded
in the said case. Hence, M.V.C.No.1126/2015 and
M.V.C.No.1127/2015 are pending for consideration and disposal
before this Tribunal by passing a common Judgment.
SCCH-7 4 MVC.No.1126/2015
C/w MVC No.1127/2015
2. It is pertinent to note here that, during the pendency of
the petition in M.V.C.No.1126/201, the sole Petitioner died on
27.09.2015 and as per the Order dated 17.03.2016 passed on
I.A.No.III, the present Petitioners No.1(a) to (c) are impleaded as
parties to the said petition.
3. The deceased sole Petitioner in M.V.C.No.1126/2015
has filed the said petition as against the Respondents No.1 and 2
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, praying to
award compensation of Rupees 4,00,000/- with interest and
costs.
4. The brief averments of the deceased sole Petitioner's
case in M.V.C. No.1126/2015 are as follows;
a) On 29.11.2014 at about 8.20 a.m., she was going in a
Swaraj Mazda bearing Registration No.KA-51-B-6228 on Tumkur -
Bangalore N.H.4 Express Road, carefully and cautiously, when
she reached near Madwara Sky Walk, at that time, all of a sudden,
the driver of the said Swaraj Mazda drove the same in a rash and
negligent manner with high speed, neglecting all the traffic rules
and regulations dashed to a Lorry bearing Registration No.HR-47-
B-6674 from behind.
b) As a result of this, she sustained grievous injuries on
her face, both legs and other parts of the body.
SCCH-7 5 MVC.No.1126/2015
C/w MVC No.1127/2015
c) Immediately after the accident, she was shifted to
Columbia Asia Hospital for first-aid. Later, she was shifted to M.S.
Ramaiah Hospital for better treatment. C.T. Scan and X-rays
taken, confirms fracture frontal bone, anterior maxilla fracture,
left 5th Metatarsal base fracture. She underwent wound
debridement and soft tissue repair. She was in the Hospital as an
inpatient from 29.11.2014 to 10.12.2014. After discharge from the
Hospital, till today, she is taking treatment as an outpatient. She
spent Rupees 60,000/- towards treatment, medicines, conveyance
and nourishment charges.
d) At the time of accident, she was a Tailor and was
earning Rupees 8,000/- per month. Hence, this petition.
5. Initially, though the notice was duly served on the
Respondent No.1, it was remained absent and hence, it is placed
as exparte on 30.04.2015. Later, the Respondent No.1 has
appeared before this Tribunal through its Learned Counsel and as
per the Order dated 23.08.2016 passed on I.A.No.III, the exparte
Order is set-aside and the Respondent No.1 is taken on file. The
Respondent No.1 has filed the written statement.
6. In response to the notice, the Respondent No.2 has
appeared before this Tribunal through his Learned Counsel. But,
initially, inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the Respondent
No.2 had not filed the written statement. Later, as per the Order
dated 10.09.2015 passed on I.A.No.I, the written statement filed
by the Respondent No.2 is taken on file.
SCCH-7 6 MVC.No.1126/2015
C/w MVC No.1127/2015
7. The Respondent No.1 inter-alia denying the entire case
of the deceased sole Petitioner in M.V.C.No.1126/2015, has
further contended as follows;
a) All the material allegations made in the claim petition
are false and the petition is not maintainable either on facts are in
law against it.
b) It has issued the policy in respect of the Swaraj Mazda
bearing Registration No.KA-51-B-6228. However, the original
policy is in the possession and control of the Respondent No.2. It
hereby calls upon the Respondent No.2 to produce the original
policy. The liability of it, is limited to the terms and conditions of
the policy of insurance issued.
c) The petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary and
proper parties and as such, the driver and owner of the Lorry
bearing Registration No.HR-47-B-6674 are also necessary parties
to the case and without impleading the said parties, the petition is
not maintainable.
d) The person driving the vehicle has "no relation in force"
as on the date of accident to drive the vehicle.
e) The driver of the vehicle has no valid and effective
driving licence at the time of accident. The vehicle involved in the
alleged accident is a Transport vehicle and hence, specific licence
to drive the Transport Vehicle. But, in the case on hand, the driver
has no licence to drive the heavy Transport vehicle. The Owner of
SCCH-7 7 MVC.No.1126/2015
C/w MVC No.1127/2015
the vehicle knowingly entrusted the vehicle to a person, who has
no valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in
question. Hence, it is not liable to pay any compensation.
f) The Swaraj Mazda bearing Registration No.KA-51-B-B-
6228 was used in the public place without having valid permit and
fitness certificate. Using the vehicle without permit and fitness
certificate is clear violation of the terms and conditions of the
policy and also against to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act
and hence, it is not liable to pay any compensation.
g) It seeks protection under the Section 149(2) of M.V.
Act.
h) As per Section 134(c) of M.V. Act, 1988, it is
mandatory duty of the owner of the vehicle to furnish the
particulars of policy, date, time and place of accident, particulars
of injured and the name of the driver and particulars of the driving
licence, but, the owner of the vehicle has not complied with
statutory demand. Hence, it is not liable to pay any compensation
and the case is liable to be dismissed against it for non-
compliance of statutory demand.
i) As per Section 158(6) of M.V. Act, 1988, it is a
mandatory duty of the concerned P.S. to forward all the relevant
documents to the concerned insurer within 30 days from the date
of the information, but, the Madanayakanahalli Police failed to
SCCH-7 8 MVC.No.1126/2015
C/w MVC No.1127/2015
forward the documents and not complied with the statutory
demand.
j) The Petitioner is not entitled to claim any interest on
non-pecuniary damages as per the Judgment reported in 1995
ACJ (1) page 366.
k) The Swaraj Mazda bearing Registration No.KA-51-B-
6228 is not at all involved in any accident and it was intentionally
implicated in collusion with the driver, owner and other
Authorities in order to get the unlawful benefit from the Insurance
Company. If the claimant is able to prove that, the said vehicle is
involved in the said accident as alleged, there was no rash and
negligent driving by its driver. The Swaraj Mazda bearing
Registration No.KA-51-B-6228 was driven by its driver very slowly
and carefully and the unfortunate accident occurred only due to
the rash and negligent driving of the Lorry bearing Registration
No.HR-47-B-6674, who has taken sudden turn without giving any
indication to the vehicle coming from the back side and hence, it
is clear that, the driver of the said Lorry is solely responsible for
the cause of accident. Hence, it is not liable to pay any
compensation.
l) The instant petition filed by the Petitioner is false,
malicious, incorrect and malafide and is nothing, but, an abuse of
the process of the law and it is an attempt to waste the precious
time of this Hon'ble Forum, as, the same has been filed by the
Petitioner just to avail undue advantage for his own mistake. In
SCCH-7 9 MVC.No.1126/2015
C/w MVC No.1127/2015
view of the above, it is clear that, the Petitioner has not
approached this Hon'ble Court with clear hands and with true
facts and he is trying to mislead this Hon'ble Court.
m) It craves leave of this Hon'ble Court to take all defences
available to the owner of the vehicle under Section 170 of M.V. Act
and to contest the case on all the grounds apart from those
specified U/s 149(2) of M.V. Act, in case, the owner of the insured
vehicle remains exparte or colluded with the claimant.
n) It craves the leave of this Hon'ble Court to file an
additional counter at a later stage as and when the better
particulars come to its knowledge. Hence, prayed to dismiss the
petition with costs, else, its Company will be put to irreparable
loss and injury.
8. The Respondent No.2 inter-alia denying the entire case
of the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.1126/2015, has further contended
as follows;
a) The petition filed by the Petitioner is not maintainable
either in law or on facts.
b) He has been driving the vehicle by observing all the
traffic rules and regulations by moderate speed, however, the
driver of the lorry driven the same without giving signals, had
stopped the vehicle and he had applied the brake and in spite of
it, the said vehicle has contacted, for which, he is not liable to pay
the compensation.
SCCH-7 10 MVC.No.1126/2015
C/w MVC No.1127/2015
c) The compensation claimed by the Petitioner is an
exorbitant, excessive imaginary and besides false.
d) The petition filed by the Petitioner is bad for mis-
joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and on this ground
alone, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
e) At the time of alleged accident he is having valid
licence and insurance was also forced. Hence, prayed to dismiss
the petition.
9. The Petitioner in M.V.C.No.1127/2016 has filed the
said petition as against the Respondents No.1 and 2 under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, praying to award
compensation of Rupees 4,00,000/- with interest and costs.
10. The brief averments of the Petitioner's case in M.V.C.
No.1127/2015 are as follows;
a) On 29.11.2014 at about 8.20 a.m., she was going in a
Swaraj Mazda bearing Registration No.KA-51-B-6228 on Tumkur-
Bangalore N.H.4 Express Road, carefully and cautiously, when
she reached near Madwara Sky Walk, at that time, all of a sudden,
the driver of the said Swaraj Mazda drove the same in a rash and
negligent manner with high speed, neglecting all the traffic rules
and regulations, dashed to a Lorry bearing Registration No.HR-47-
B-6674 from behind.
SCCH-7 11 MVC.No.1126/2015
C/w MVC No.1127/2015
b) As a result of this, she sustained grievous injuries on
her left hand, face and other parts of the body.
c) Immediately after the accident, she was shifted to
Premier Sanjeevini Hospital for treatment. X-rays taken confirms
fracture scaphoid left wrist and loss of 6 teeth. She took treatment
at Rajajinagar Orthopedic and fracture Care Centre and Vijay
Dental Clinic. POP cast applied to her left wrist. She spent Rupees
40,000/- towards treatment, medicines, conveyance and
nourishment charges. Hence, this petition.
11. Initially, though the notice was duly served on the
Respondent No.1, it was remained absent and hence, it is placed
as exparte on 30.04.2015. Later, the Respondent No.1 has
appeared before this Tribunal through its Learned Counsel and as
per the Order dated 11.01.2016 passed on I.A.No.II, the exparte
Order is set-aside and the Respondent No.1 is taken on file. The
Respondent No.1 has filed the written statement.
12. In response to the notice, the Respondent No.2 has
appeared before this Tribunal through his Learned Counsel. But,
initially, inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the Respondent
No.2 had not filed the written statement. Later, as per the Order
dated 10.09.2015 passed on I.A.No.I, the written statement filed
by the Respondent No.2 is taken on file.
SCCH-7 12 MVC.No.1126/2015
C/w MVC No.1127/2015
13. The Respondent No.1 inter-alia denying the entire case
of the deceased sole Petitioner in M.V.C.No.1127/2015, has
further contended as follows;
a) All the material allegations made in the claim petition
are false and the petition is not maintainable either on facts are in
law against it.
b) It has issued the policy in respect of the Swaraj Mazda
bearing Registration No.KA-51-B-6228. However, the original
policy is in the possession and control of the Respondent No.2. It
hereby calls upon the Respondent No.2 to produce the original
policy. The liability of it, is limited to the terms and conditions of
the policy of insurance issued.
c) The petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary and
proper parties and as such, the driver and owner of the Lorry
bearing Registration No.HR-47-B-6674 are also necessary parties
to the case and without impleading the said parties, the petition is
not maintainable.
d) The person driving the vehicle has "no relation in force"
as on the date of accident to drive the vehicle.
e) The driver of the vehicle has no valid and effective
driving licence at the time of accident. The vehicle involved in the
alleged accident is a Transport vehicle and hence, specific licence
to drive the Transport Vehicle. But, in the case on hand, the driver
has no licence to drive the heavy Transport vehicle. The Owner of
SCCH-7 13 MVC.No.1126/2015
C/w MVC No.1127/2015
the vehicle knowingly entrusted the vehicle to a person, who has
no valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in
question. Hence, it is not liable to pay any compensation.
f) The Swaraj Mazda bearing Registration No.KA-51-B-B-
6228 was used in the public place without having valid permit and
fitness certificate. Using the vehicle without permit and fitness
certificate is clear violation of the terms and conditions of the
policy and also against to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act
and hence, it is not liable to pay any compensation.
g) It seeks protection under the Section 149(2) of M.V.
Act.
h) As per Section 134(c) of M.V. Act, 1988, it is
mandatory duty of the owner of the vehicle to furnish the
particulars of policy, date, time and place of accident, particulars
of injured and the name of the driver and particulars of the driving
licence, but, the owner of the vehicle has not complied with
statutory demand. Hence, it is not liable to pay any compensation
and the case is liable to be dismissed against it for non-
compliance of statutory demand.
i) As per Section 158(6) of M.V. Act, 1988, it is a
mandatory duty of the concerned P.S. to forward all the relevant
documents to the concerned insurer within 30 days from the date
of the information, but, the Madanayakanahalli Police failed to
SCCH-7 14 MVC.No.1126/2015
C/w MVC No.1127/2015
forward the documents and not complied with the statutory
demand.
j) The Petitioner is not entitled to claim any interest on
non-pecuniary damages as per the Judgment reported in 1995
ACJ (1) page 366.
k) The Swaraj Mazda bearing Registration No.KA-51-B-
6228 is not at all involved in any accident and it was intentionally
implicated in collusion with the driver, owner and other
Authorities in order to get the unlawful benefit from the Insurance
Company. If the claimant is able to prove that, the said vehicle is
involved in the said accident as alleged, there was no rash and
negligent driving by its driver. The Swaraj Mazda bearing
Registration No.KA-51-B-6228 was driven by its driver very slowly
and carefully and the unfortunate accident occurred only due to
the rash and negligent driving of the Lorry bearing Registration
No.HR-47-B-6674, who has taken sudden turn without giving any
indication to the vehicle coming from the back side and hence, it
is clear that, the driver of the said Lorry is solely responsible for
the cause of accident. Hence, it is not liable to pay any
compensation.
l) The instant petition filed by the Petitioner is false,
malicious, incorrect and malafide and is nothing, but, an abuse of
the process of the law and it is an attempt to waste the precious
time of this Hon'ble Forum, as, the same has been filed by the
Petitioner just to avail undue advantage for his own mistake. In
SCCH-7 15 MVC.No.1126/2015
C/w MVC No.1127/2015
view of the above, it is clear that, the Petitioner has not
approached this Hon'ble Court with clear hands and with true
facts and he is trying to mislead this Hon'ble Court.
m) It craves leave of this Hon'ble Court to take all defences
available to the owner of the vehicle under Section 170 of M.V. Act
and to contest the case on all the grounds apart from those
specified U/s 149(2) of M.V. Act, in case, the owner of the insured
vehicle remains exparte or colluded with the claimant.
n) It craves the leave of this Hon'ble Court to file an
additional counter at a later stage as and when the better
particulars come to its knowledge. Hence, prayed to dismiss the
petition with costs, else, its Company will be put to irreparable
loss and injury.
14. The Respondent No.2 inter-alia denying the entire case
of the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.1127/2015, has further contended
as follows;
a) The petition filed by the Petitioner is not maintainable
either in law or on facts.
b) He has been driving the vehicle by observing all the
traffic rules and regulations by moderate speed, however, the
driver of the lorry driven the same without giving signals, had
stopped the vehicle and he had applied the brake and in spite of
it, the said vehicle has contacted, for which, he is not liable to pay
the compensation.
SCCH-7 16 MVC.No.1126/2015
C/w MVC No.1127/2015
c) The compensation claimed by the Petitioner is an
exorbitant, excessive imaginary and besides false.
d) The petition filed by the Petitioner is bad for mis-
joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and on this ground
alone, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
e) At the time of alleged accident he is having valid
licence and insurance was also forced. Hence, prayed to dismiss
the petition.
15. Based on the above said pleadings, I have framed the
following Issues;
ISSUES
In M.V.C.No.1126/2015
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that,
the accident occurred due to rash
and negligent driving of the Swaraj
Mazda Bearing Reg.No.KA-51-B-
6228 by its driver and in the said
accident, she sustained injuries?
2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled
for compensation and damages? If
so, how much and from whom?
3. What Order?
SCCH-7 17 MVC.No.1126/2015
C/w MVC No.1127/2015
In M.V.C.No.1127/2015
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that,
the accident occurred due to rash
and negligent driving of the Swaraj
Mazda Bearing Reg.No.KA-51-B-
6228 by its driver and in the said
accident, she sustained injuries?
2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for
compensation and damages? If so,
how much and from whom?
3. What Order?
16. In order to prove their case, the Petitioners in
M.V.C.No.1126/2015 have examined the Petitioner No.1(b) as
P.W.1 by filing an affidavit as his examination-in-chief and have
placed reliance upon Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9 and the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.1127/2015 herself has been examined as P.W.2 by filing
an affidavit as her examination-in-chief and has placed reliance
upon Ex.P.10 to Ex.P.14. On the other hand, the Respondents
have not adduced any evidence on their behalf.
17. Heard the arguments.
18. My answers to the above said Issues are as follows;
M.V.C.No.1126/2015
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative,
SCCH-7 18 MVC.No.1126/2015
C/w MVC No.1127/2015
The Petitioners are
entitled for compensation
of Rupees 1,48,460/- with
interest at the rate of 9%
p.a. from the date of the
petition till the date of
payment, from the
Respondent No.1.
Issue No.3 : As per the final Order,
M.V.C.No.1127/2015
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative,
The Petitioner is
entitled for compensation
of Rupees 35,470/- with
interest at the rate of 9%
p.a. from the date of the
petition till the date of
payment, from the
Respondent No.1.
Issue No.3 : As per the final Order,
for the following;
REASONS
19. ISSUE NO.1 IN BOTH THE CASES :- The P.W.1, who
is the Petitioner No.1(b) in M.V.C.No.1126/2015 has stated in his
examination-in-chief that, on 29.11.2014 at about 8.20 a.m., his
mother was going in a Swaraj Mazda bearing Registration No.KA-
SCCH-7 19 MVC.No.1126/2015
C/w MVC No.1127/2015
51-B-6228 on Tumkur Road, Bangalore N.H.4 Express Road,
carefully and cautiously and when his mother reached near
Madwara Sky Walk, at that time, all of a sudden, the driver of the
said vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with
high speed, neglecting all the traffic rules and regulations and
dashed to a Lorry bearing Registration No.HR-47-B-6674 from
behind and as a result of this accident, his mother sustained
grievous injuries on her face, both legs and other parts of the
body. He has further stated that, immediately after the accident,
his mother was shifted to Columbia Asia Hospital for first-aid and
later, she was shifted to M.S. Ramaiah Hospital for better
treatment and X-rays and C.T. Scan were taken, which confirms
fracture frontal bone, anterior maxilla fracture, left 5th Metatarsal
base fracture and she was in the Hospital as an inpatient from
29.11.2014 to 10.12.2014 and later, she was shifted to Ananya
Hospital for better treatment, wherein, she was in the Hospital for
2 weeks. He has further stated that, Madanayakanahalli Police
have registered a case in Crime No.568/2014 under Section 279
and 338 of IPC as against the said driver of the Swaraj Mazda.
20. The P.W.2, who is the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.1127/2015 has stated in her examination-in-chief that,
on 29.11.2014 at about 8.20 a.m., she was going in a Swaraj
Mazda bearing Registration No.KA-51-B-6228 on Tumkur Road,
Bangalore N.H.4 Express Road, carefully and cautiously and when
she reached near Madwara Sky Walk, at that time, all of a sudden,
the driver of the said vehicle drove the same in a rash and
negligent manner with high speed, neglecting all the traffic rules
SCCH-7 20 MVC.No.1126/2015
C/w MVC No.1127/2015
and regulations and dashed to a Lorry bearing Registration
No.HR-47-B-6674 from behind and as a result of this accident,
she sustained grievous injuries on her face, left hand, face and
other parts of the body. She has further stated that, immediately
after the accident, she was shifted to Premier Sanjeevini Hospital
for treatment and X-rays were taken, which confirms fracture
scaphoid left wrist and loss of 6 teeth (incisors) and POP slab
applied to her left hand and she took treatment as an outpatient
for about 5 months. She has further stated that,
Madanayakanahalli Police have registered a case in Crime
No.568/2014 under Section 279 and 338 of IPC as against the
said driver of the Swaraj Mazda.
21. No doubt, the P.W.2 in her cross-examination has
stated that, at the time of accident, she was traveling in the
Swaraj Majda to attend the marriage and they were 15 persons
traveling in the Swaraj Majda and in front of Swaraj Majda, the
offending Lorry was proceeding and the driver of the said Lorry
had suddenly applied the break and due to it, the driver of Swaraj
Majda dashed on the back side of the said Lorry.
22. But, based on the said evidence of P.W.2, which is
elicited from her mouth by the Respondent No.1, the above said
oral version of P.W.1 and P.W.2, which has been stated by them in
their examination-in-chief, cannot be thrown away, as, to
corroborate their case, the Petitioners in M.V.C.No.1126/2015
have produced Ex.P.1 FIR, Ex.P.2 Complaint, Ex.P.3 Spot
Panchanama, Ex.P.4 MVI Report, Ex.P.5 Charge Sheet, Ex.P.6
SCCH-7 21 MVC.No.1126/2015
C/w MVC No.1127/2015
Wound Certificate and Ex.P.7 Discharge Summary and the
Petitioner in M.V.C.No.1127/2015 has produced Ex.P.10 Wound
Certificate and Ex.P.11 Medical Documents issued by Rajajinagar
Orthopedic and Fracture Case Center, which clearly disclosed
that, the deceased sole Petitioner in M.V.C.No.1126/2015 and the
Petitioner in M.V.C.No.1127/2015 were traveling in the offending
Swaraj Mazda bearing Registration No.KA-51-B-6228 and when
they reached near Madavara Sky walk, at that time, the driver of
the said offending Swaraj Majda drove it in a very high speed, rash
and negligent manner and dashed to the Lorry bearing
Registration No.HR-47-B-6674 on its behind and due to which,
the deceased Petitioner in M.V.C.No.1126/2015 had sustained 6
simple injuries and 3 grievous injuries and initially, she had taken
treatment to the said accidental injuries at Columbia Asia
Hospital and thereafter by admitting as an inpatient from
29.11.2014 to 10.12.2014, i.e., for 12 days, she took treatment to
the said accidental injuries at M.S. Ramaiah Hospital and the
Petitioner in M.V.C.No.1127/2015 had sustained grievous injuries
and initially, she had taken treatment to the said accidental
injuries at Premier Sanjeevini Hospital on 29.11.2014 and
thereafter, she had taken treatment at Rajajinagar Orthopedic and
Fracture Case Centre on 15.12.2014 and the entire negligence is
on the part of the driver of the offending Swaraj Mazda bearing
Registration No.KA-51-B-6228, which is clear from the following
discussion. Furthermore, to consider their specific defence, the
Respondents No.1 and 2 have not adduced any evidence on their
behalf. Further, the P.W.2 has clearly denied the suggestions put
to her by the Respondent No.1 during the course of cross-
SCCH-7 22 MVC.No.1126/2015
C/w MVC No.1127/2015
examination that, there was no negligence on the part of the driver
of Swaraj Majda, but, due to negligence on the part of the driver of
Lorry, the accident was taken place and only to get compensation,
the produced documents are created and a false affidavit is filed.
From this, it appears that, though the P.W.2 has been cross-
examined by the Respondent No.1, nothing has been elicited from
her mouth to consider its defence in respect of the accident in
question.
23. The contents of Ex.P.1 FIR and Ex.P.2 Complaint
clearly disclosed that, the eye witness, who was also inmate of the
offending Swaraj Majda had lodged Ex.P.2 Complaint before the
Madanayakanahalli Police as against the driver of the offending
Swaraj Mazda bearing Registration No.KA-51-B-6228 by alleging
that, on 29.11.2014 at 8-20 a.m., when he was traveling in the
offending Maxi Cab along with his relatives after attending the
marriage function of his uncle, Near Madavara Skywalk, Tumkur
to Bangalore Express Highway, the driver of the offending Maxi
Cab drove it with very high speed, rash and negligent manner and
dashed to the Lorry bearing Registration No.HR-47-B-6674 on its
behind and due to the said impact, both vehicles caused damages
and Kalavathi, Narayana Rao, Gayathri Bai, Geetha Bai,
S.Narayana Rao, Shalini and Rukmini have sustained injuries and
the driver of the said offending Maxi Cab also sustained injuries
and through 108 Ambulance, they were shifted to Premier
Sanjeevini Hospital and for further treatment, the deceased
Petitioner Kalavathi was admitted at M.S. Ramaiah Hospital and
as such, he prayed to take necessary legal action as against the
SCCH-7 23 MVC.No.1126/2015
C/w MVC No.1127/2015
driver of the offending Maxi Cab and based on Ex.P.2 Complaint,
the said Police have registered a criminal case as against the
driver of the said offending Maxi Cab bearing Registration No.KA-
51-B-6228 for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 338
of IPC under Crime No.568/2014. It is also clear from the
contents of Ex.P.1 FIR and Ex.P.2 Complaint that, there is no
delay as such in lodging Ex.P.2 Complaint by the eye witness in
respect of the said road traffic accident in question.
24. The contents of Ex.P.3 Spot Panchanama and Ex.P.4
MVI Report further clearly disclosed that, the entire negligence is
on the part of the driver of the offending Swaraj Mazda bearing
Registration No.KA-51-B-6228 in the commission of the said road
traffic accident and there was no negligence on the part of the
driver of the Lorry bearing Registration No.HR-47-B-6674 and if
the driver of the offending Swaraj Majda could have taken a little
care while driving it, this accident could not occurred. The
damages caused to both the vehicles are clearly mentioned in
Ex.P.4 MVI Report, which clearly disclosed about the terrific
impact of the said road traffic accident. It is also clearly mentioned
in Ex.P.4 MVI Report that, the said accident was not occurred due
to any mechanical defects of the said vehicles.
25. The contents of Ex.P.6 Wound Certificate clearly
disclosed that, with a history of road traffic accident, which
caused on 29.11.2014 at -15 a.m., at Madavara, Tumkur Road,
the deceased Petitioner in M.V.C.No.1126/2015 brought to
Columbia Asia Hospital and on examination, it is found that, she
SCCH-7 24 MVC.No.1126/2015
C/w MVC No.1127/2015
had sustained injuries, i.e., multiple contusion on the face,
laceration of the left forehead 3 cm x 1 cm x bone deep, laceration
of the left cheek 4 cm x 1 cm x bone deep, right leg contusion
present, laceration left eye lid, head injury with depressed fracture
of left frontal sinus with hemosinus, fracture of left orbit roof and
medial wall orbital emphysema, fracture left zygomatic bone and
contused abrasion left knee and leg, i.e., 6 simple injuries and 3
simple injuries.
26. The contents of Ex.P.7 Discharge Summary further
clearly disclosed that, the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.1126/2015 also
taken treatment to the said accidental injuries at M.S. Ramaiah
Hospital by admitting as an inpatient from 29.11.2014 to
10.12.2014, i.e., for 12 days and during the course of treatment, it
is finally diagnosed post RTA facial injuries (frontal bone fracture,
anterior maxilla fracture, type 2 DM, left 5th metatarsal base
fracture and left knee hemarthrosis and alleged history of road
traffic accident around 8-15 a.m., on 29.11.2014 on Tumkur
Road, she was admitted in the said Hospital to take treatment to
the said accidental injuries.
27. The contents of Ex.P.10 Wound Certificate disclosed
that, the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.1127/2015 was brought to
Premier Sajeevini Hospital with a history of road traffic accident
on 29.11.2014 at 8-15 a.m., and she was examined and found the
injury, i.e., contusion left wrist with swelling and pain, which is
grievous in nature.
SCCH-7 25 MVC.No.1126/2015
C/w MVC No.1127/2015
28. The contents of Ex.P.11 Medical Document issued by
Rajajinagar Orthopedic and Fracture Care Centre dated
15.12.2014 disclosed that, the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.1127/2015
had sustained one grievous injury.
29. From the above said medical evidence, it is made
crystal clear that, the deceased Petitioner in M.V.C.No.1126/2015
had sustained 6 simple injuries and 3 grievous injuries and the
Petitioner in M.V.C.No.1127/2015 had sustained grievous injury
in the said road traffic accident.
30. It is pertinent to note here that, the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.1127/2015 has produced Ex.P.12 Letter dated
22.12.2014 issued by Vijaya Dental Clinic, which disclosed about
the treatment taken by the Petitioner to tooth injury. But, Ex.P.12
cannot be taken into for consideration in the present petition in
respect of the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.1127/2015, as, Ex.P.10
Wound Certificate relating to the Petitioner does not disclosed
tooth injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. Even, Ex.P.11
Medical document issued by the Rajajinagar Orthopedic Fracture
Care Centre does not disclose tooth injury sustained by the
Petitioner in the said road traffic accident. Therefore, Ex.P.12
produced by the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.11272015 cannot be taken
into for consideration in the present petition and as such, it is
discarded.
31. The contents of Ex.P.5 Charge Sheet further clearly
disclosed that, since during the course of investigation, it is found
SCCH-7 26 MVC.No.1126/2015
C/w MVC No.1127/2015
that, due to very high speed, rash and negligent manner of driving
of offending Swaraj Mazda bearing Registration No.KA-51-B-6228
by its driver itself, the said road traffic accident was taken place
on 29.11.2014 at 8-20 a.m., near Madavara Sky Walk, Tumkur to
Bangalore Road, which dashed to the Lorry bearing Registration
No.HR-47-B-6674 on its behind and due to the said impact, both
the vehicles caused damages and the deceased Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.1126/2015 had sustained simple injuries and grievous
injuries and the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.1127/2015 had sustained
simple injuries and as such, after thorough investigation, the
Investigating Officer has filed a charge sheet as against the driver
of the offending Swaraj Mazda bearing Registration No.KA-51-B-
6228 for the offences punishable under Section 279, 337 and 338
of IPC. There is no allegation leveled by the Investigating Officer in
Ex.P.5 Charge Sheet as against the driver of the Lorry bearing
Registration No.HR-B-6674 about his negligence in the
commission of the said road traffic accident.
32. From the above said material evidence, both oral and
documentary, it is clearly proved that, the entire negligence is on
the part of the driver of the offending Swaraj Mazda bearing
Registration No.KA-51-B-6228, wherein, the deceased Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.1126/2015 and the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.1127/2015
were traveling and there was no negligence on the part of the
driver of the Lorry bearing Registration No.HR-47-B-6674 and the
said Swaraj Mazda bearing Registration No.KA-51-B-6228 as well
as its driver are very much involved in the said road traffic
accident, wherein, the deceased Petitioner in M.V.C.No.1126/2015
SCCH-7 27 MVC.No.1126/2015
C/w MVC No.1127/2015
had sustained 6 simple injuries and 3 grievous injuries and the
Petitioner in M.V.C.No.1127/2015 had sustained one grievous
injury. Accordingly, I answered Issue No.1 in both the cases in
the Affirmative.
33. ISSUE NO.2 IN BOTH THE CASES :-
34. ISSUE NO.2 IN M.V.C.NO.1126/2015 :- No
authenticated documents are produced by the Petitioners to
consider the actual age of the deceased Petitioner Kalavathi Bai at
the time of accident. But, the medical documents relating to her
as narrated above, clearly disclosed that, at the time of accident,
she was 56 years old. Hence, the age of the deceased Petitioner is
considered as 56 years at the time of accident.
35. The P.W.1 has not stated anything about the avocation
and income of the deceased Petitioner in his examination-in-chief.
In the absence of the material evidence, as the deceased Petitioner
was 56 years old, which disclosed her family status with husband
and children, i.e., Petitioners No.1(a) to 1(c), this Tribunal feels
that, it is just, proper and necessary to consider the notional
income of the Petitioner is of Rupees 5,000/- p.m., at the time of
accident. Hence, the notional income of the deceased Petitioner is
considered as Rupees 5,000/- p.m., at the time of accident.
36. The P.W.1 has stated that, his mother underwent
debridement and soft tissue repair. Based on the contents of
Ex.P.6 Wound Certificate relating to the Columbia Hospital, this
SCCH-7 28 MVC.No.1126/2015
C/w MVC No.1127/2015
Tribunal has already observed and come to the conclusion that, in
the said road traffic accident, the deceased Petitioner had
sustained multiple contusion on the face, laceration of the left
forehead 3 cm x 1 cm x bone deep, laceration of the left cheek 4
cm x 1 cm x bone deep, right leg contusion present, laceration left
eye lid, head injury with depressed fracture of left frontal sinus
with hemosinus, fracture of left orbit roof and medial wall orbital
emphysema, fracture left zygomatic bone and contused abrasion
left knee and leg, i.e., 6 simple injuries and 3 grievous injuries.
Based on Ex.P.7 Discharge Summary relating to M.S. Ramaiah
Hospital, this Tribunal has observed and come to the conclusion
that, by admitting as an inpatient from 29.11.2014 to 10.12.2014,
i.e., for 12 days, the deceased Petitioner took treatment to the said
accidental injuries and during the course of treatment, it is
diagnosed post RTA facial injuries (frontal bone fracture, anterior
maxilla fracture, type 2 DM, left 5th metatarsal base fracture and
left knee hemarthrosis. It is also clearly mentioned in Ex.P.7
Discharge Summary that, during the course of treatment,
debridement + soft tissue repair under GA was done on
02.12.2014 and at the time of discharge, he was advised to take
follow-up treatment along with medication. From this, it is made
crystal clear that, no implants are inserted to the deceased
Petitioner during the course of treatment, but, she underwent
debridement and soft tissue repair.
37. The P.W.1 has stated that, his mother died on
27.09.2015 due to Heart Attack. He has further clearly stated in
his cross-examination that, Kalavathi Bai is his mother and she
SCCH-7 29 MVC.No.1126/2015
C/w MVC No.1127/2015
died on 27th September 2015 due to heart attack. He has further
clearly stated that, there is no nexus between the death of his
mother and the accident in question. From the said evidence of
P.W.1, it is made crystal clear that, the deceased died on
27.09.2015, i.e., after filing of the present petition and the cause
of death is heart attack and the said accidental injury no way
related to the said cause of death. Therefore, it can be safely hold
that, there is no nexus in between the death of the deceased
Petitioner and the accidental injuries.
38. It is pertinent to note here that, the death of deceased
Petitioner reported on 02.03.2016 by filing a memo mentioning
that, she died on 27.09.2015 and as per Order dated 17.03.2016
passed on I.A.No.III, the Petitioners No.1(a) to 9(c) are impleaded
as parties to the said petition, as, the legal representatives of the
deceased Petitioner.
39. While answering Issue No.1, this Tribunal has already
observed and come to the conclusion that, the deceased Petitioner
had sustained 6 simple injuries and 3 grievous injuries in the road
traffic accident and by admitting as an inpatient from 29.11.2014
to 10.12.2014, i.e., for 12 days, she took treatment to the said
accidental injuries at M.S. Ramaiah Hospital and she was 56
years old and she was a house wife. While discussing above, it is
also come to the conclusion that, there is no nexus in between the
death of the deceased Petitioner and the accidental injuries. Under
such circumstances, the Petitioners being the legal representatives
SCCH-7 30 MVC.No.1126/2015
C/w MVC No.1127/2015
of the said deceased Petitioner, are entitled for compensation
under the heads of injury case, which are discussed below.
40. As per Ex.P.6 Wound Certificate and evidence of P.W.1,
the deceased Petitioner had sustained 6 simple injuries and 3
grievous injuries. The deceased Petitioner was in the Hospital as
an inpatient from 29.11.2014 to 10.12.2014, i.e., for 12 days.
Further, at the time of accident, the deceased Petitioner was 56
years old. Due to the said injuries, the deceased Petitioner could
have definitely suffered a lot of pain and agony during the course
of treatment. Considering the said aspects, it is just, proper and
necessary to award a sum of Rupees 75,000/- towards pain and
suffering.
41. The deceased Petitioner had sustained 6 simple
injuries and 3 grievous injuries and she was in the Hospital as an
inpatient for 12 days and she could not do any work at least for 3
months and thereby, she deprived the income. Therefore, at the
rate of Rupees 5,000/- per month, a sum of Rupees 15,000/- is
awarded towards loss of income during the laid up period.
42. The P.W.1 has stated that, his mother used to visit
Hospital in an auto by paying Rupees 150/- per trip and she
spent Rupees 70,000/- towards treatment, medicine, conveyance
and nourishment charges. In this regard, the Petitioners have
produced Ex.P.8 Medical Bills 53 in numbers, which is amounting
of Rupees 48,460/- and Ex.P.9 Medical Prescriptions 9 in
numbers. The P.W.1 in his cross-examination has clearly stated
SCCH-7 31 MVC.No.1126/2015
C/w MVC No.1127/2015
that, by obtaining loan, they have bare the medical expenses of his
deceased mother. The deceased Petitioner had taken treatment at
M.S. Ramaiah Hospital, wherein, she was taken treatment as an
inpatient from 29.11.2014 to 10.12.2014, i.e., for 12 days.
Considering the nature of the injuries and line of treatment given
to the deceased Petitioner and length of treatment, the possibility
of spending the said amount for the medicines can not be
doubted. Therefore, it is necessary to award the said actual
medical expenses of Rupees 48,460/- to the Petitioners.
43. As the deceased Petitioner was taken treatment as an
inpatient for 12 days, it is necessary to award a sum of Rupees
3,000/- towards conveyance charges, Rupees 3,000/- towards
attendant charges and Rupees 4,000/- towards food, nourishment
and diet charges etc.,
44. In this way, the Petitioners are entitled for the following
amount of compensation:-
Sl. No. Compensation heads Compensation amount
1. Pain and sufferings Rs. 75,000-00
Loss of income during laid
2. Rs. 15,000-00
up period
3. Actual medical expenses Rs. 48,460-00
4. Conveyance Rs. 3,000-00
5. Attendant Charges Rs. 3,000-00
Food, Nourishment &
6. Rs. 4,000-00
Diet charges
TOTAL Rs. 1,48,460-00
SCCH-7 32 MVC.No.1126/2015
C/w MVC No.1127/2015
45. In all, the Petitioners are entitled for total
compensation of Rupees 1,48,460/- along with interest at the rate
of 9% per annum on the above said sum from the date of petition
till payment.
46. ISSUE NO.2 IN M.V.C.NO.1127/2015 :- The P.W.2
has stated that, POP slab applied to her left hand and she took
treatment as an outpatient for about 5 months. She has further
stated that, inspite of best available treatment taken, she had
suffered disabilities and she cannot lift weight on her left hand,
cannot do heavy manual work, cannot bite and chew hard foot
and often gets pain in her left hand. She has further stated that,
at the time of accident, she was a Tailor and was earning Rupees
8,000/- per month and due to the accidental injuries, she is
unable to do the said job and so, she lost that income. She has
further stated in her cross-examination that, during the course of
treatment, she was not underwent any operation and only POP
was applied.
47. No doubt, based on Ex.P.10 Wound Certificate issued
by Premier Sanjeevini Hospital, this Tribunal has already observed
and come to the conclusion that, in the said road traffic accident,
the Petitioner had sustained gratuous left wrist with swelling and
pain and based on Ex.P.11 Medical document issued by
Rajajinagar Orthopedic and Fracture Care Center dated
15.12.2014, it is observed and come to the conclusion that, the
SCCH-7 33 MVC.No.1126/2015
C/w MVC No.1127/2015
Petitioner had fracture scaphoted left wrist, which is grievous in
nature.
48. But, based on the above said oral evidence of P.W.2
coupled with the contents of Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.11 Medical
documents, it cannot be believed and accept that, due to the said
accidental injury, the Petitioner is suffering from permanent
disability and difficulties, as, as admitted by the P.W.2 herself, she
has taken treatment to the said accidental injury as an outpatient
and except Ex.P.10 Wound Certificate and Ex.P.11 Medical
Document, no case sheet or follow-up treatment records are
produced by the Petitioner. Further, the Petitioner has not
examined the treated Doctor or the competent Doctor, who has
assessed the difficulties and disability, which alleged to have been
suffered by her due to the said accidental injury. Furthermore, the
Petitioner was not underwent any surgery or operation to the said
accidental injury. The Petitioner had only POP applied to the said
injury. Further, it is clearly mentioned in Ex.P.11 Medical
Document issued by Rajajinagar Orthopedic and Fracture Care
Centre dated 15.12.2014 that, only medicines advised. Further,
no disability certificate issued either by the treated Doctor or the
competent Doctor is produced by the Petitioner to consider her
said difficulties and disability, which is suffering by her due to the
said accidental injury. Further, the P.W.2 in her cross-
examination has clearly stated that, now she is doing tailoring
work. Therefore, the Petitioner is not entitled for compensation
towards loss of future income and loss of amenities of life, which
is arising out of the permanent physical and functional disability
SCCH-7 34 MVC.No.1126/2015
C/w MVC No.1127/2015
due to the said accidental injury and loss of income during laid-up
period and future medical expenses.
49. However, in the said road traffic accident, the
Petitioner had sustained one grievous injury and she took
treatment to the said accidental injury as an outpatient and the
said injury caused to her in the road traffic accident, by
considering the same, it is just, proper and necessary to award
global compensation of Rupees 30,000/-, which is fare and
reasonable. Hence, the Petitioner is entitled for global
compensation of Rupees 30,000/-.
50. The P.W.2 has stated that, she took treatment as an
outpatient for about 5 months and she used to visit Hospital in an
Auto by paying Rupees 150/- per trip and she spent Rupees
50,000/- towards treatment, medicine, conveyance and
nourishment charges. In this regard, the Petitioner has only
produced Ex.P.13 Medical Bills 4 in numbers, which is amounting
of Rupees 25,470/- and Ex.P.14 Medical Prescriptions relating to
Vijaya Dental Clinic. It is pertinent to note here that, as per
Ex.P.10 Wound Certificate, in the said road traffic accident, the
Petitioner had sustained gretuous left wrist with swelling and
pain. As per Ex.P.11 Medical document issued by Rajajinagar
Orthopedic and Fracture Center dated 15.12.2014, the Petitioner
had sustained fracture scaphotel left wrist. The said injury is
grievous in nature. Nowhere in Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.11, it is
mentioned that, in the said accident, the Petitioner had sustained
tooth injury. But, Ex.P.14 Medical Prescriptions relating to Vijaya
SCCH-7 35 MVC.No.1126/2015
C/w MVC No.1127/2015
Dental Clinic is in respect of the injury of tooth. Further, Serial
No.4 of Ex.P.13 Medical Bill, which is amounting of Rupees
20,000/-, issued by Vijaya Dental Clinic dated 16.12.2014 is
relating to tooth injury. In this regard, the P.W.2 in her cross-
examination has clearly stated that, she does not know that, in
Ex.P.10 Wound Certificate, the injury caused to tooth not
mentioned. Though it is stated by the P.W.2 in her cross-
examination that, she has no hurdle to examine the author of
Serial No.4 of Ex.P.13 Medical Bills, she did not care to examine
the author of Serial No.4 of Ex.P.13 Medical Bills to consider the
same. Since, Ex.P.14 Medical Prescriptions and Serial No.4
Ex.P.13 Medical Bills are relating to tooth injury and since the
Petitioner had not sustained injury to tooth in the accident in
question, the amount covered under Serial No.4, which is of
Rupees 20,000/- and Ex.P.14 Medical Prescriptions, are
discarded. After deduction of the said amount of Rupees 20,000/-
in the total amount of Rupees 25,470/-, which covered under
Ex.P.13 Medical Bills, the balance comes to Rupees 5,470/-.
Therefore, the said amount of Rupees 5,470/- is only taken in to
for consideration in respect of Ex.P.13 Medical Bills. The Petitioner
has taken treatment as an outpatient to the said accidental injury,
i.e., fracture of left wrist and only POP was applied. Considering
the nature of the injury and line of treatment given to the
Petitioner, the possibility of spending the said amount of Rupees
5,470/- for the medicines cannot be doubted. Therefore, it is
necessary to award the said actual medical expenses of Rupees
5,470/- to the Petitioner.
SCCH-7 36 MVC.No.1126/2015
C/w MVC No.1127/2015
51. Since, as admitted by the Petitioner herself, she was
not underwent any operation and only POP was applied to the
accidental injury and she took treatment to the accidental injury
as an outpatient, the Petitioner is not entitled for any
compensation towards future medical expenses, conveyance
charges, attendant charges and food, nourishment and diet
charges etc.,
52. In all, the Petitioner is entitled for total compensation
of Rupees 35,470/- (Rupees 30,000/- + Rupees 5,470/-) along
with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the above said sum
from the date of petition till payment.
53. While answering Issue No.1, this Tribunal has already
come to the conclusion that, the entire negligence is on the part of
the driver of the offending Swaraj Mazda bearing Registration
No.KA-51-B-6228, wherein, the deceased Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.1126/2015 and the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.1127/2015
were traveling and there was no negligence on the part of the
driver of the Lorry bearing Registration No.HR-47-B-6674 and the
said Swaraj Mazda bearing Registration No.KA-51-B-6228 as well
as its driver are very much involved in the said road traffic
accident, wherein, the deceased Petitioner in M.V.C.No.1126/2015
had sustained 6 simple injuries and 3 grievous injuries and the
Petitioner in M.V.C.No.1127/2015 had sustained one grievous
injury. It is clearly mentioned by both the Petitioners in the cause
title of both the petitions that, the Respondent No.1 is an insurer
and the Respondent No.2 is a owner of the offending Swaraj
SCCH-7 37 MVC.No.1126/2015
C/w MVC No.1127/2015
Mazda bearing Registration No.KA-51-B-6228 and the Policy
No.2314/53692603/00/000, valid from 21.12.2013 to
20.12.2014. The Respondent No.1 in its Written Statement has
clearly admitted that, it has issued the policy in respect of the
Swaraj Mazda bearing Registration No.KA-51-B-6228 and
however, the original policy is in the possession and control of the
Respondent No.2. The Respondent No.2 in his Written Statement
has clearly stated that, at the time of alleged accident, he is
having valid licence and Insurance was also forced. The said
period of insurance policy includes the date of accident. From this,
it is made crystal clear that, at the time of accident, the
Respondent No.1 was an insurer and the Respondent No.2 was a
R.C. Owner of the offending Swaraj Mazda bearing Registration
No.KA-51-B-6228 and its Insurance Policy was valid, which covers
the date of accident. There is no allegation leveled as against the
driver of the offending Swaraj Mazda bearing Registration No.KA-
51-B-6228 in Ex.P.5 Charge Sheet by the Investigation Officer
that, at the time of accident, he was not having a valid and
effective driving licence to drive such class of the offending Swaraj
Mazda. The violation of the terms and conditions of the admitted
Insurance Policy by the Respondent No.2 is not proved by the
Respondent No.1. Under such circumstances, the Respondent
No.1 being the Insurer and the Respondent No.2 being the R.C.
Owner of the offending Swaraj Mazda bearing Registration No.KA-
51-B-6228, are jointly and severally liable to pay the above said
compensation and interest to both the Petitioners. Since the
Respondent No.1 is an insurer, it shall indemnify the Respondent
SCCH-7 38 MVC.No.1126/2015
C/w MVC No.1127/2015
No.2. Hence, Issues No.2 in M.V.C.No.1126/2015 and
M.V.C.No.1127/2015 are answered accordingly.
54. ISSUE NO.3 IN M.V.C.No.1126/2015 :- For the
aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
The petition filed by the Petitioners under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The Petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rupees 1,48,460/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of payment, from the Respondent No.1.
The Respondent No.1 shall deposit the said compensation and interest in this Tribunal, within one month from the date of this Order.
The Petitioners shall share the compensation and interest equally.
In the event of deposit of
compensation and interest, entire
shares relating to the Petitioners shall SCCH-7 39 MVC.No.1126/2015 C/w MVC No.1127/2015 be released in their respective names through account payee cheques, on proper identification.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rupees 1,000/-.
Original copy of the Judgment shall be kept in M.V.C.No.1126/2015 and the copy of the same shall be kept in M.V.C.No.1127/2015.
Draw award accordingly.
55. ISSUE NO.3 IN M.V.C.NO.1127/2015 :- For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER The petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The Petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rupees 35,470/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of payment, from the Respondent No.1.
SCCH-7 40 MVC.No.1126/2015C/w MVC No.1127/2015 The Respondent No.1 shall deposit the said compensation and interest in this Tribunal, within one month from the date of this Order.
In the event of deposit of
compensation and interest, entire
amount shall be released in the name of the Petitioner through account payee cheque, on proper identification.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rupees 1,000/-.
Original copy of the Judgment shall be kept in M.V.C.No.1126/2015 and the copy of the same shall be kept in M.V.C.No.1127/2015.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then, pronounced by me in the open Court on this, the 24h day of August, 2016.) (INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR) IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
SCCH-7 41 MVC.No.1126/2015C/w MVC No.1127/2015 ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE PETITIONERS :-
P.W.1 : Anand Rao
P.W.2 : Gayathri Bai
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED BY THE PETITIONERS :-
Ex.P.1 : True Copy of FIR
Ex.P.2 : True Copy of Complaint
Ex.P.3 : True Copy of Spot Panchanama
Ex.P.4 : True Copy of MVI Report
Ex.P.5 : True Copy of Charge Sheet
Ex.P.6 : True Copy of Wound Certificate
Ex.P.7 : Discharge Summary
Ex.P.8 : Medical Bills (53 in nos.)
Ex.P.9 : Medical Prescription (9 in nos.)
Ex.P.10 : True copy of Wound Certificate
Ex.P.11 : Medical document issued by
Rajajinagar Orthopedic and Fracture Care Centre Ex.P.12 : Letter dated 22.12.2014 issued by Vijaya Dental Clinic Ex.P.13 : Medical Bills (4 in nos.) Ex.P.14 : Medical Prescription
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE RESPONDENTS :-
-NIL-
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED BY THE RESPONDENTS :-
-NIL-
(INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR) IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.