Bangalore District Court
In Mvc No.3535/2014 Smt. Lakshmamma vs In Both The Cases. 1. Sri. Mohammed Zakir on 7 April, 2015
SCCH-14 1 MVC
No.3535/14 & 3536/14
IN THE COURT OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE SCCH-14
PRESENT: Basavaraj Chengti., B.Com.,LL.B.,(spl)
Member, MACT,
XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes,
BANGALORE.
MVC No.3535/14 and 3536/2014
Dated this the 7th day of April 2015.
Petitioner in MVC No.3535/2014 Smt. Lakshmamma,
W/o Devaraju,
Aged about 41 years,
R/o # 48,
Rajivagandi Nagar,
Doddabidarikally,
Bangalore-560 073.
(By pleader Sri SV)
Petitioners in MVC No.3536/2014 1. B.L Nagamani
W/o Nagaraju
Aged about 44 years,
2. Kamalesh M.N
S/o Nagaraju
Aged about 19 years,
All are residing at
R/o # 18, 4th cross,
Venugopla Nagar,
Doddabidarakallu,
Bangalore-560 073.
(By pleader Sri SV)
Vs.
SCCH-14 2 MVC
No.3535/14 & 3536/14
Respondents in both the cases. 1. Sri. Mohammed Zakir,
S/o late C.S Abdul Shakur,
Aged by major,
R/o # 1563.
Market road,
Chikkanayakanahalli,
Tumkur District.,
(Owner of the lorry bearing
No.KA-44-1427)
2. Shriram General Ins.,Co.Ltd.,
2nd floor, Monarch Chamber,
Infantry road,
Bangalore-560 001.
(Insurer of the lorry bearing
No.KA-44-1427)
3. Sri. H.G Mahadeva
S/o late Gangappa,.
# 1513, 4th D main road,
West of Chord road,
Mahalakshmipuram,
Bangalore.
(Owner of the lorry bearing
No.KA-02-AD-5867)
4. SBI General Ins.,Co.Ltd.,
V.V Giri Colony,
Seshadripuram,
Bangalore-560 020.
(Insurer the lorry bearing
No.KA-02-AD-5867)
Rep., By its Authorized officer
(R1-Exparte
R2-By pleader Sri SM
SCCH-14 3 MVC
No.3535/14 & 3536/14
R3-Exparte
R4-By pleader Sri RSS)
COMMON JUDGMENT
The petitioners have filed these petitions U/Sec.166 of
Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- in
each case with cost and interest for the death of Ravikumar and
Avinash respectively in a road traffic accident. These two
petitions are arising out of the same accident and hence, the
petitions are clubbed together for common trial and for common
Judgment.
2. Brief facts of the cases as under:
On 25.03.2014 at about 18.00 hrs., the deceased
Ravikumar and Avinash were proceeding in Ashok Leyland Lorry
(HGV) bearing No.KA-02-AD-5867 from Manvi to Bangalore after
loading the rice. Deceased Avinash was the driver of said lorry
and deceased Ravikumar was its cleaner. When they reached
near Kammatha Marikunte cross, SH-19 road, Challakere Taluk,
of Chitradurga District, at that time, the driver of Ashok Leyland
Lorry (HGV) bearing No.KA-44-1427 had parked his lorry on the
road in negligent manner without observing the traffic rules. As a
result, deceased Avinash was unable to locate the lorry and
dashed his lorry bearing No.KA-02-AD-5867 to the parked lorry
bearing No.KA-44-1427 from behind. Due to impact, both the
deceased succumbed to the injuries on spot. After postmortem,
the dead bodies were handed over to the petitioners. They have
spent Rs.60,000/- respectively towards transportation of dead
bodies and obsequies and funeral ceremony etc., Prior of the
SCCH-14 4 MVC
No.3535/14 & 3536/14
accident, both the deceased were hale and healthy. The
deceased Ravikumar was working as a cleaner and the deceased
Avinash was working as a driver. They were earning Rs.25,000/-
p.m., each. Due to the sudden death of both the deceased, the
petitioners are facing lot of mental shock, agony, financial loss,
put to great hardship, loss of dependency and loss of love and
affection. Challkere Police have registered Cr.No.127/2014 for
the offences punishable U/Sec.279 and 304(A) of IPC. The
respondent no.1 and 2 are the owner and insurer of the lorry
bearing No.KA-44-1427 and the respondent no.3 and 4 are the
owner and insurer of the lorry bearing No.KA-02-AD-5867. The
respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation
to the petitioners with the cost and interest. Hence, the petitions.
3. In pursuance of the notices, the respondent no.2 and
4 have appeared before the Court through their respective
counsel and filed objection statements separately in both the
cases. The respondent no.1 has refused to receive notice and the
respondent no.3 was duly served with the notice. Inspite of it,
they remained absent and hence, they are placed exparte. The
respondent no.2 has admitted the issuance of policy in favour of
respondent no.1 in respect of lorry bearing No.KA-44-1427, but
he has denied the other averments of the petition as false and
contended that the insured and concerned police have failed to
forward documents and have not complied with their mandatory
duties, that the driver of the lorry bearing No.KA-02-AD-5867 was
solely responsible for the accident, that the criminal case was
registered against the driver of the lorry bearing No.KA-02-AD-
SCCH-14 5 MVC
No.3535/14 & 3536/14
5867, that the petitioners in order to harass him, have
unnecessarily made him as a party to the proceedings in fact the
driver of lorry was not responsible for the accident, that the
driver of the insured vehicle was not holding a valid and effective
driving licence as on the date of accident, that the insured has
committed breach of terms and conditions of the policy, that the
insured vehicle was not having valid permit and fitness
certificate as on the date of accident. He has not admitted the
status of the petitioners as LRs of the deceased. Hence, he has
sought for dismissal of the claim petitions against him.
The respondent no.4 has admitted that he has issued a
policy in favour of respondent no.3 in respect of lorry bearing
No.KA-02-AD-5867, but he has denied the case of the petitioners
as false and contended that the petition is not maintainable
either in law or on facts, that the driver of the insured lorry was
not rash or negligent and not responsible for the accident, that
the lorry bearing No.KA-44-1427 was stationing without parking
lights on, in pitch darkness amounts to leaving of vehicle in
dangerous position for other road users and violation of Sec.122
of MV Act 1988, that deceased were not traveling in the lorry as
employees, that the police without proper investigation have
filed chargesheet against the driver of insured lorry, that the
compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive,
exaggerated, arbitrary and speculative which compared to
comparable cases. Hence he has sought for dismissal of the
petitions with costs.
SCCH-14 6 MVC
No.3535/14 & 3536/14
4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following
issues have been framed:
ISSUES IN MVC No.3535/2014
1 Whether the petitioners prove that Avinash
M.N S/o Nagaraj M.K died due to the
injuries sustained by him in the accident
occurred on 25.03.2014 at about 06.00
p.m., Kammatha Marikunte cross, SH-19
road, Challakere Taluk, Chitradurga District,
arising due to negligence of drivers of Lorry
bearing No.KA-02-AD-5867 and lorry
bearing No.KA-44-1427?
2 Whether the petitioners are entitled to
compensation ? If so, how much from
whom?
3 What Order or Award?
ISSUES IN MVC No.3536/2014
1 Whether the petitioners prove that Avinash
M.N S/o Nagaraj M.K died due to the
injuries sustained by him in the accident
occurred on 25.03.2014 at about 06.00
p.m., Kammatha Marikunte cross, SH-19
road, Challakere Taluk, Chitradurga District,
arising due to negligence of drivers of Lorry
bearing No.KA-02-AD-5867 and lorry
bearing No.KA-44-1427?
2 Whether the petitioners are entitled to
compensation ? If so, how much from
whom?
3 What Order or Award?
SCCH-14 7 MVC
No.3535/14 & 3536/14
5. At the instance of the petitioners, these petitions are
clubbed together for common evidence and disposal by a
common Judgment. During the evidence, the petitioner in MVC
No.3535/14 has examined herself as PW.1 and the petitioners in
MVC No.3536/14 have examined the petitioner no.1 as PW.2.
They have got marked documents as Ex.P1 to 11. The
respondent no.2 has examined his officer as RW.1. After hearing
the arguments, it is noticed that issue no.1 in both the cases
were wrongly framed. Hence, said issues were recast as under:
RECAST ISSUE NO.1 IN MVC NO.3535/14
Whether the petitioners prove that
Ravi Kumar S/o Devaraju died due to the
injuries sustained by him in the accident
occurred on 25.03.2014 at about 06.00
p.m., Kammatha Marikunte cross, SH-19
road, Challakere Taluk, Chitradurga District,
arising due to negligence of drivers of Lorry
bearing No.KA-02-AD-5867 and lorry
bearing No.KA-44-1427?
RECAST ISSUE NO.1 IN MVC NO.3536/14
Whether the petitioners prove that
Avinash S/o Nagaraj M.K died due to the
injuries sustained by him in the accident
occurred on 25.03.2014 at about 06.00 p.m.,
Kammatha Marikunte cross, SH-19 road,
Challakere Taluk, Chitradurga District, arising
due to negligence of driver of lorry bearing
No.KA-44-1427?
6. Heard both sides and perused the records.
SCCH-14 8 MVC
No.3535/14 & 3536/14
7. My findings to the above issues in both cases are
as under:-
MVC NO.3535/14
Issue No.1: Partly in Affirmative.
Issue No.2: In Affirmative. For
Rs.7,42,000/-
from the respondent
no.4.
Issue No.3 : As per final order:
MVC NO.3536/15
Issue No.1: In Negative.
Issue No.2 : In Negative.
Issue No.3 : As per final order:
for the following:
REASONS
8. ISSUE NO.1 IN BOTH THE CASES: The petitioner
in MVC No.3535/14 is stated to be the mother of deceased
Ravikumar. The petitioners in MVC No.3536/14 are stated to be
the mother and younger brother of the deceased Avinash. The
respondent no.1 and 2 are the owner and insurer of lorry bearing
No.KA-44-1427, whereas the respondent no.3 and 4 are the
owner and insurer of lorry bearing No.KA-02-AD-5867.
Admittedly, the policies of insurance were in force as on the date
of accident. The respondent no.1 and 3 have not appeared
before the court and are placed exparte. The respondent no.2
and 4 have contested the matter. The occurrence of accident,
death of Ravikumar and Avinash, filing of abated chargesheet by
police against deceased Avinash are not in dispute. PW.1
Smt.Lakshmamma and PW.2 Nagamani have deposed that the
SCCH-14 9 MVC
No.3535/14 & 3536/14
deceased were the driver and cleaner of lorry bearing No.KA-02-
AD-5867. No rebuttal evidence is placed before court. No
admission is extracted from PW.1 and 2 to disbelieve their
evidence as to occupation of the deceased. It is admitted in
pleadings that the lorry bearing No.KA-44-1427 was parked on
the left side of SH-19 and Lorry bearing No.KA-02-AD-5867 was
driven and dashed on the rear portion of parked lorry bearing
No.KA-441427. IMV report discloses the damages caused to both
the vehicles which confirm the manner of accident. The brake
system of Lorry bearing No.KA-02-AD-5867 was in order. It is
opined that the accident was not due to mechanical defects of
the vehicles. Then, the accident should have been occurred due
to negligence of either of the drivers or of both. Copies of police
records at Ex.P1 to 8 particularly Ex.P3, 4, 7 and 8 confirm that
the death of the deceased was due to injuries sustained by them
in the accident. There was no delay in lodging FIR, but the first
informant is not an eye witness. The police have investigated the
matter and filed chargesheet against the driver Lorry bearing
No.KA-02-AD-5867 for the offences punishable U/Sec.279 and
304-A of IPC. The said chargesheet is prima-facie evidence of
negligence of said driver, but it is not a conclusive proof. PW.1
Lakshmamma and PW.2 Nagamani have stated about the
manner of accident and death of deceased due to accidental
injuries. They have admitted in cross-examination that they have
not seen the accident and do not know on whose fault the
accident has occurred. RW.1 Jayant Inamdar has stated that the
accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
driver of Lorry bearing No.KA-02-AD-5867. His evidence as to
SCCH-14 10 MVC
No.3535/14 & 3536/14
manner of accident remained uncorroborated. He is not an eye
witness to the accident. Hence, his evidence is inadmissible as to
manner of accident. The respondent no.4 has contended that the
deceased Avinash was not responsible for the accident and it is
the unmindful parking of lorry bearing No.KA-44-1427 on the
road by its driver which has resulted in the accident. It is argued
for him that the lorry was parked without precautionary
measures and there was no signal or indication to caution to
other road users, that the road is a State highway and no vehicle
moves slowly, that if the lorry was not parked there, the accident
would not have occurred. But, it is to be noted that the
respondent no.4 has not adduced any evidence to prove his
defence ad to disprove the case of his rivals.
9. It is evident from police records that Lorry bearing
No.KA-02-AD-5867 was driven by the deceased Avinash and it
dashed against the lorry bearing No.KA-44-1427 from behind. It
is stated that the lorry bearing No.KA-44-1427 was parked there
as it was under repair. So, it becomes clear that the lorry bearing
No.KA-44-1427 was not willfully parked there, but due to some
repair work, it was forced to park at that place. Copy of spot
panchanama is at Ex.P6 and it reads as under:
"¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀݼÀªÀÅ PÀªÀÄävï
ªÀÄjPÀÄAmÉ UÉÃmï ºÀwÛgÀ ZÀ¯Éä
¸Áé«Ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ZÀ¼ÀîPÉgÉÉ ¥ÉÇð¸ï
FgÀtÚ EªÀgÀ d«Ää£À
ªÀÄÄA¨sÁUÀzÀ°è ºÁzÀÄ ºÉÆÃVgÀĪÀ
J¸ïºÉZï19 gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ ¥ÀǪÀðzÀ
JqÀ¨sÁUÀzÀ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ ªÉÄïÉ
C¥ÀWÁvÀ £ÀqÉzÀ ¸ÀݼÀªÁVgÀÄvÉÛ
J¸ïºÉZï-19 gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ CAa¤AzÀ CAzÀgÉ
¥ÀǪÀðzÀ gÀ¸ÉÛ CAa¤AzÀ ¥À²éªÀÄPÉÌ
SCCH-14 11 MVC
No.3535/14 & 3536/14
¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 5 Cr zÀÆgÀzÀ°è J¸ïºÉZï-19
gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É C¥ÀWÁvÀ £ÀqÉzÀ
¸ÀݼÀªÁVgÀÄvÉÛ. ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀݼÀ¢AzÀ
zÀQëtPÉÌ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 50 «ÄÃlgï
zÀÆgÀzÀ°è PÀªÀÄävï
ªÀÄjPÀÄAmÉUÉÃmï EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj
C¥ÀWÁvÀ £ÀqÉzÀ ¸ÀݼÀzÀ°è
C¥ÀWÁvÀQÌÃqÁzÀ ¯ÁjUÀ¼À
©r¨sÁUÀUÀ¼ÀÄ QvÀÄÛ PɼÀUÉ ©
¢ÝgÀÄvÀÛzÉ'
10. The above portion makes it clear that the width of
the road in the place of accident is 28' with 4' mud road on both
sides. The place of accident is 5' away from eastern edge of the
road. The Lorry bearing No.KA-02-AD-5867came from Challakere
and eastern portion of the road was correct side for it, but there
was 23' open road on the right side i.e., on western side of lorry
bearing No.KA-44-1427. The driver of Lorry bearing No.KA-02-AD-
5867 could have easily driven his lorry from the western portion
of the road. He could have applied brakes and avoided the
accident, but he did not do so.
11. PW.1, 2 and RW.1 have stated and admitted that the
accident has occurred on 25.03.2014 at about 06.00 P.M., Police
records corroborate the evidence of witnesses as to time of
accident. Since, it was March month, there will be twilight at 6.00
P.M., precautionary measures which require during night hours
are not necessary. Mud road measures 4'. So, it can be easily
said that the lorry bearing No.KA-44-1427 was parked partly on
mud road and partly on tar road. The place of accident is 5' away
from eastern edge which means half of the body of the lorry was
on mud road. This indicates that the driver of said lorry has taken
utmost care to park his lorry on the extreme left side of the road
SCCH-14 12 MVC
No.3535/14 & 3536/14
by making full use of the mud road. Since, there was some
repair, the lorry was forced to park there. In the twilight, the
deceased Avinash drove his lorry and dashed it on the back
portion of parked lorry though there was sufficient space on its
western side. In the twilight, the deceased did not observe the
parked lorry and did not apply brakes to avoid accident. All
these aspects point out only one fact i.e., the negligent driving of
the deceased Avinash. If he was little careful and cautious, he
would have avoided the mishap. The chargesheet filed by the
police is neither defective nor collusive. I am of the opinion that
the driver of lorry bearing No.KA-44-1427 was not at fault and
there was no negligence on his part. The accident has occurred
due to sole negligence of the driver of Lorry bearing No.KA-02-
AD-5867. Hence, I answer the issues as above.
12. ISSUE NO. 2 IN MVC NO.3535/2014: It is pleaded
that the deceased Ravikumar was the son of the petitioner, that
he was aged about 25 years, was a cleaner on Lorry bearing
No.KA-02-AD-5867 and was earning Rs.25,000/- p.m., The
respondent no.2 and 4 have disputed the status of the petitioner.
However, they have not produced any rebuttal evidence in that
regard. The petitioner has examined herself as PW.1 and stated
about her relationship with the deceased Ravikumar. Her
evidence has to her status is not denied in cross-examination.
The contents of inquest panchanama at Ex.P3 reveals that the
petitioner is the mother of the deceased Ravikumar. The
petitioner has produced copy of death certificate of Ravikumar
which is marked as Ex.P9. On the basis of oral evidence of PW.1
SCCH-14 13 MVC
No.3535/14 & 3536/14
and contents of Ex.P3 and 9, it can be held that the petitioner is
the mother of the deceased Ravikumar. She is Class-I heir of the
deceased who was residing with the petitioner. Hence, the
petitioner is being LR and dependent of the deceased, she is
entitled for compensation.
13. PW.1 has deposed that her son was aged 25 years,
was working as a cleaner and earning Rs.25,000/- p.m., In cross-
examination, she has denied the suggestions put her by the
counsel for the respondent no.2 and 4 as false, but she has
admitted that her son was aged 30 years on the date of accident
and her age is shown as 50 years in Ex.P3. On perusal of inquest
panchanama at Ex.P3, it reveals that the investigating officer has
recorded the age of the deceased as 23 years and age of the
petitioner as 50 years. It can be said that the I.O. has gathered
information regarding the age of the petitioner from her only.
Looking the admissions of PW.1 and contents of Ex.P3, I am
inclined to assess the age of the deceased as 30 years and age
of the petitioner as 50 years as on the date of accident. Since,
the deceased was unmarried, age of the petitioner is to be
considered for ascertaining appropriate multiplier. The petitioner
was aged 50 years and appropriate multiplier for the said age is
13.
14. Oral evidence of PW.1 and contents of police records
at Ex.P1 to 4 clearly reveal that the deceased Ravikumar was
working as a cleaner and he was traveling in Lorry bearing
No.KA-02-AD-5867 at the time of accident. There is no rebuttal
evidence on behalf of the respondent no.2 and 4 as to the
SCCH-14 14 MVC
No.3535/14 & 3536/14
occupation of the deceased. Therefore, I have no hesitation to
hold that the deceased was working as a cleaner. There is no
corroboration to the evidence of PW.1 as to income of the
deceased. There is nothing on record to believe that the
deceased was getting a salary Rs.25,000/- p.m., The petitioner
would have examined the employer of the deceased to establish
the income of the deceased, but she has shown ignorance as to
name and address of the employer of the deceased. Under the
circumstances, I am inclined to assess the income of the
deceased notionally @ Rs.6,000/- p.m., The deceased was aged
30 years as on the date of accident. Hence, 50% amount shall be
added to the income towards future prospects. On such addition,
the gross income of the deceased comes to Rs.9,000/- p.m., His
annual income comes to 1,08,000/- p.a., He was a bachelor and
left behind the petitioner as his sole surviving legal heir. Then, ½
of the income shall be deducted towards living expenses. On
such deduction, the net income of the deceased comes to
Rs.54,000/- p.a., Then, loss of dependency of the petitioner
would be Rs.54,000X 13= 7,02,000/-. The petitioner has lost her
son who was aged 30 years and was only bread earner of the
family. Hence, she is entitled for a compensation of Rs. 20,000/-
towards loss of love and affection and Rs.20,000/- towards
transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. Thus the
petitioner is entitled for just and reasonable compensation of
Rs.7,42,000/-. The petitioner is further entitled for interest @ 9%
p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment. Liability
aspect is discussed separately. Hence, I answer the issue as
above.
SCCH-14 15 MVC
No.3535/14 & 3536/14
15. ISSUE NO.2 IN MVC NO.3536/14: The
petitioners are claming compensation for the death of deceased
Avinash stating that they are the mother and the younger
brother of the deceased. The respondent no.2 and 4 have
disputed the status of the petitioners, but they have not adduced
any evidence to support their defence. The petitioners have
examined the petitioner no.1 as PW.1 and got marked copies of
inquest panchanama, and PM report, transfer certificate and
driving licence of the deceased as Ex.P7, 8, 10 and 11. PW.1
Nagamani has deposed that she is the mother of the deceased
and the petitioner no.2 is the younger brother of the deceased.
Except bare denials, nothing is elicited from her in cross-
examination. Contents of inquest panchanama and transfer
certificate reveal that the petitioner no.1 is the mother of the
deceased Avinash. There is no evidence to disbelieve the status
of the petitioner no.1 and 2 in respect of the deceased. Hence, I
believe the evidence of PW.1 and contents of Ex.P7, 10 and hold
that the petitioners are the mother and younger brother of the
deceased. PW.1 has deposed in her cross-examination that her
husband is alive, but he has deserted her about 10
years back. There is nothing to disbelieve her evidence regarding
desertion by her husband. Hence, I hold the petitioners are the
only LRs and dependents of the deceased.
16. It is held above that the accident was due to rash
and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.KA-02-AD-5867 by the
deceased Avinash. There is no evidence to believe that the driver
of lorry bearing No.KA-44-1427 was also negligent and
SCCH-14 16 MVC
No.3535/14 & 3536/14
contributed to the accident. The deceased Avinash was the
driver of lorry bearing No.KA-44-1427. The accident has occurred
due to his sole negligence. He is the tort-feasor and therefore,
the petitioners are not entitled for any compensation. If the
accident was due to the negligence of the driver of other vehicle,
then the petitioners would be entitled for compensation. Oral and
documentary evidence before the Court clearly establish that the
accident was due to the negligence of the deceased and hence,
the respondents are not liable to pay any compensation to the
petitioners, who are LRs and dependents of tort-feasor.
Under the circumstances, I hold that the petitioners are not
entitled any compensation and I answer the issue in negative.
LIABILITY
17. The petitioner in MVC No.3535/14 is entitled for
compensation of Rs.7,42,000/- with in interest @ 9% p.a., from
the date of petition till the date of payment. The respondent no.1
and 2 are the owner and the insurer of the lorry bearing No.KA-
44-1427. It is held above there was no negligence on the part of
the driver of said vehicle. Hence, the respondent no.1 and 2 are
not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner and the
petitions as against the respondent no.1 and 2 are liable to be
dismissed without cost.
18. It is held above that the accident was due to rash
and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing No.KA-02-AD-
5867. The respondent no.3 and 4 are the owner and the insurer
of the said lorry. The policy was in force as on the date of
accident. Hence, the respondent no.3 and 4 are jointly and
SCCH-14 17 MVC
No.3535/14 & 3536/14
severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner in MVC
No.3535/14. The respondent no.4 has contended that the insured
has committed breach of terms and conditions of the policy, that
the driver of insured lorry was not holding a valid and effective
driving licence as on the date of accident and hence, he is not
liable to indemnify the respondent no.3. He has not produced
any evidence either oral or documentary to establish his
defence. The petitioners in MVC No.3536/14 have produced copy
of driving license of the deceased Avinash which is marked as
Ex.P11. On perusal of said licence, it reveals that the deceased
Avinash was holing a valid and effective driving licence to ride
the motorcycle with gear, to drive a LMV (transport and non-
transport) and to drive a PSV bus. It further reveals that the
driver of the said lorry was not holding a valid and effective
driving licence to drive a HGV, but the respondent no.4 has not
made any efforts to examine the I.O. and concerned RTO to
establish that the driver of the insured lorry was not holding a
valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident. He
has not issued any notice to the insured to produced licence of
the driver. His officer has not entered the witness box to depose
about the facts stated in the written statement. Therefore, only
on the basis of Ex.P11, it cannot to be held that the driver of
lorry bearing No.KA-02-AD-5867 was not holding a valid and
effective driving licence to drive a HGV as on the date of
accident. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the respondent no.4
has failed to prove his defence as to breach of terms and
conditions by the respondent no.3. Hence, he is not absolved
from indemnifying the insured. He is liable to pay compensation
SCCH-14 18 MVC
No.3535/14 & 3536/14
to the petitioner as calculated above. Hence, I answer the issues
as above.
19. Issue No.3 in both cases: In view of above
discussion and findings, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petition filed U/Sec. 166 of M.V Act by the petitioner in MVC No.3535/2014 is hereby partly allowed with cost The petitioner in MVC No.3535/14 is entitled for a compensation of Rs.7,42,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondent no.3 and 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount of Rs.7,42,000/- with interest to the petitioner. In view of insurance policy, the respondent no.4 is liable to deposit the compensation amount with interest before the Tribunal within one month from the date of Award.
After deposit of the amount, Rs.3,00,000/- shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner in any nationalized or scheduled bank for a period of 3 years. Balance amount and interest shall be released in her favour through account payee cheques with proper identification.
SCCH-14 19 MVCNo.3535/14 & 3536/14 The petition filed by the petitioners U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act in MVC No.3536/14 is dismissed without cost.
The claim petitions filed against the respondent no.1 and 2 stand dismissed without cost.
The original Judgment shall be kept in MVC No.3535/2014 and copy of the same in MVC.No.3536/14.
Advocate's fees in MVC No.3535/14 is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open court, on this the 7h day of April 2014.) (Basavaraj Chengti) XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bangalore .
ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS:
PW.1 Smt.Lakshmamma PW.2 B.L.Nagamani Respondents : RW.1 Jayant Inamdar Ex.P1 Copy of FIR SCCH-14 20 MVC No.3535/14 & 3536/14 Ex.P2 Copy of chargesheet Ex.P3 Copy of Inquest panchanama Ex.P4 Copy of PM report Ex.P5 Copy of IMV report Ex.P6 Copy of spot panchanama Ex.P7 Copy of inquest panchanama Ex.P8 Copy of PM report Ex.P9 Copy of death certificate of Ravikumar Ex.P10 Transfer certificate Ex.P11 Driving licence of Avinash Respondent's Nil XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bangalore . Dt.07.04.2015 P-SV R1 & 3-Exparte R2-SM R4-RSS For Judgment. SCCH-14 21 MVC No.3535/14 & 3536/14
Order pronounced in open court vide separate judgment.
ORDER The petition filed U/Sec.166 of M.V Act by the petitioner in MVC No.3535/2014 is hereby partly allowed with cost The petitioner in MVC No.3535/14 is entitled for a compensation of Rs.7,42,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondent no.3 and 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount of Rs.7,42,000/- with interest to the petitioner. In view of insurance policy, the respondent no.4 is liable to deposit the compensation amount with interest before the Tribunal within one month from the date of Award.
After deposit of the amount, Rs.3,00,000/- shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner in any nationalized or scheduled bank for a period of 3 years. Balance amount and interest shall be released in her favour through account payee cheques with proper identification.
SCCH-14 22 MVCNo.3535/14 & 3536/14 The petition filed by the petitioners U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act in MVC No.3536/14 is dismissed without cost.
The claim petitions filed against the respondent no.1 and 2 stand dismissed without cost.
The original Judgment shall be kept in MVC No.3535/2014 and copy of the same in MVC.No.3536/14.
Advocate's fees in MVC No.3535/14 is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bangalor e.
SCCH-14 23 MVCNo.3535/14 & 3536/14 AWARD SCCH NO.14 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA : BANGALORE CITY MVC No.3535/14 and 3536/2014 Petitioner in MVC No.3535/2014 Smt. Lakshmamma, W/o Devaraju, Aged about 41 years, R/o # 48, Rajivagandi Nagar, Doddabidarikally, Bangalore-560 073.
(By pleader Sri SV) Petitioners in MVC No.3536/2014 1. B.L Nagamani W/o Nagaraju Aged about 44 years,
2. Kamalesh M.N S/o Nagaraju Aged about 19 years, All are residing at R/o # 18, 4th cross, Venugopla Nagar, Doddabidarakallu, Bangalore-560 073.
(By pleader Sri SV) Vs. Respondents in both the cases. 1. Sri. Mohammed Zakir, S/o late C.S Abdul Shakur, Aged by major, R/o # 1563.
Market road, Chikkanayakanahalli, Tumkur District., SCCH-14 24 MVC No.3535/14 & 3536/14 (Owner of the lorry bearing No.KA-44-1427)
2. Shriram General Ins.,Co.Ltd., 2nd floor, Monarch Chamber, Infantry road, Bangalore-560 001.
(Insurer of the lorry bearing No.KA-44-1427)
3. Sri. H.G Mahadeva S/o late Gangappa,.
# 1513, 4th D main road, West of Chord road, Mahalakshmipuram, Bangalore.
(Owner of the lorry bearing No.KA-02-AD-5867)
4. SBI General Ins.,Co.Ltd., V.V Giri Colony, Seshadripuram, Bangalore-560 020.
(Insurer the lorry bearing No.KA-02-AD-5867) Rep., By its Authorized officer (R1-Exparte R2-By pleader Sri SM R3-Exparte R4-By pleader Sri RSS) 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. SCCH-14 25 MVC No.3535/14 & 3536/14 WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before Sri/Smt.Basavaraj Chengti, XVI Addl.Judge, Member, Court of Small Cause, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. Advocate for respondent.
ORDER The petition filed U/Sec. 166 of M.V Act by the petitioner in MVC No.3535/2014 is hereby partly allowed with cost The petitioner in MVC No.3535/14 is entitled for a compensation of Rs.7,42,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondent no.3 and 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount of Rs.7,42,000/- with interest to the petitioner. In view of insurance policy, the respondent no.4 is liable to deposit the compensation amount with interest before the Tribunal within one month from the date of Award.
After deposit of the amount, Rs.3,00,000/- shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner in any nationalized or scheduled bank for a period of 3 years. Balance amount and interest shall be released SCCH-14 26 MVC No.3535/14 & 3536/14 in her favour through account payee cheques with proper identification.
The petition filed by the petitioners U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act in MVC No.3536/14 is dismissed without cost.
The claim petitions filed against the respondent no.1 and 2 stand dismissed without cost.
The original Judgment shall be kept in MVC No.3535/2014 and copy of the same in MVC.No.3536/14.
Advocate's fees in MVC No.3535/14 is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day of 2015.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: Bangalore.
By the __________________________________ Petitioner/s Respondent No.1 No.2 __________________________________ Court fee paid on petition 10-00 Court fee paid on Powers 01-00 Court fee paid on I.A. Process Pleaders Fee _____________________________ Total Rs. ____________________________ SCCH-14 27 MVC No.3535/14 & 3536/14 Decree Drafted Scrutinised by MEMBER, M.A.C.T. METROPOLITAN:
BANGALORE Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR