Bangalore District Court
Sri.Sathish.V.M vs Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd on 27 July, 2022
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru
DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF JULY 2022
PRESENT: SMT.SHILPA K.S ( BAL, LLB)
VII Addl. SCJ and ACMM,
Member, MACT3, Bengaluru.
M.V.C. No.5464/2017
Petitioner : Sri.Sathish.V.M,
S/o Munivenkatappa,
Aged about 29 years,
R/at No.128/8, 25th Cross,
1st Main Road,
Maruthinagar,
Bengaluru North,
Bengaluru - 64.
(By Smt.A.Asha, Advocate)
Vs
Respondents : 01. Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd.,
R/at No.28, 5th Floor,
Centenary Building,
M.G. Road,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
(Policy No.14152 172340000 4375
(Valid from 12062017 to 11062018)
(Ins. Vehicle No.KA51B4169)
(By Sri.M.E.Madhu Sudhan, Advocate)
(SCCH3) 2 MVC.No.5464/17
02. The Head Master,
The Book Field Kannada Primary
School,
Singena Agrahara Village,
Sarjapura Hobli,
Anekal Taluk,
Bengaluru - 560 100.
(Owner of the vehicle
No.KA51B4169)
(Absent)
*******
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed this petition claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/ for the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident caused on 23082017.
02. The brief facts are as under: It is submitted that, on 23082017 at about 05.00 p.m when the petitioner was travelling in a two wheeler bearing No.KA50L4115 near Yadawanahalli Petrol Bunk, NH07, Hosur - Bengaluru Service Road, Bengaluru, a School Van bearing No.KA51B4169 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed to the petitioner. Due to this the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the (SCCH3) 3 MVC.No.5464/17 accident the petitioner was shifted to Best hospital and admitted as inpatient. The petitioner had spent Rs.2,00,000/ towards medical expenses. The petitioner prior to accident was hale and healthy and working as Marketing and Delivery Boy and earning Rs.20,000/ p.m. Due to the accident he is not able to work as earlier and lost his income. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of van driver. Even a criminal case is registered against the said van driver. The respondent No.1 being insurer and the respondent No.2 being owner of the said vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Hence this petition.
03. After service of notice, the respondent No.2 did not appeared before this Court and he was placed absent. However, the respondent No.1 has appeared before this Court through their counsel and filed written statement.
04. The averments of the written statement of the respondent No.1 is as under :
It is denied that the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of van driver. At the time of accident the van driver did not possess valid and effective driving license and (SCCH3) 4 MVC.No.5464/17 hence this respondent is not liable to pay the compensation. The rider of the motorcycle in which the petitioner was proceeding as pillion ride the bike in middle of the road and all of a sudden came in front of the vehicle and contributed to the accident. Eventhough there is negligence on part of rider of motorcycle false complaint is lodged against the van driver in collusion with police officials. Therefore, the petitioner is responsible for the accident. The claim of the petitioner is very excessive. The respondent No.2 did not intimate about the accident. This respondent has denied the manner of accident, income and loss of income of the petitioner. Hence, this respondent is not liable to pay the compensation and prays to dismiss the petition.
05. In order to prove the case, the petitioner and the doctor were got examined as Pw.1 and 2 and got marked 15 documents as Ex.P.1 to 15 and closed his side.
06. By way of rebuttal, the respondent No.1 has got examined two witnesses as Rw.1 and 2 and got marked 04 documents as Ex.R.1 to 4 and closed their side.
07. Heard both sides.
(SCCH3) 5 MVC.No.5464/17
08. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the
following Issues have been framed by my learned predecessor: ISSUES
01.Whether petitioner proves that he has sustained grievous injuries in the accident occurred on 23082017 at about 04.30 p.m., near Yadawanahalli Petrol Bunk, NH7, Hosur - Bengaluru Service Road, Attibele, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of School Van bearing No.KA51B4169 as alleged in the petition?
02.Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, from whom and at what quantum?
03. What Order or Award?
09. My findings on the aforesaid Issues are as under: Issue No.1 In Affirmative Issue No.2 In partly affirmative Issue No.3 As per final order for the following:
(SCCH3) 6 MVC.No.5464/17
REASONS
10. Issue No.1: It is the grievance of the petitioner that he had sustained grievous injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of School Van bearing No.KA51B4169. Due to the accident he had sustained disability and put into hardship. The same was opposed by the respondent No.1 and contended that the accident did not took place due to the negligence of School Van driver, but due to the negligence of rider of motorcycle in which the petitioner was proceeding.
11. In order to prove this, the petitioner himself got examined as P.W.1 by reiterating all the averments of the petition in his affidavit. In his crossexamination he has admitted that "It is true that I am still working as delivery boy. I was going alone on my two wheeler. I am having driving licence. This accident took place in the service road. The school van was coming on my right side". Eventhough the P.W.1 was crossexamined by the respondent No.1, but nothing was elicited from his mouth regarding his negligence for the accident.
12. The Pw.1 in support of the case had got marked entire police records as per Ex.P.1 to 6. On perusal of Ex.P.1 to 6, it is clear that the concerned (SCCH3) 7 MVC.No.5464/17 I.O. after investigation has filed Charge sheet against driver of School Van for the alleged offences punishable U/s 279, 338 of IPC and Sec.187 of IMV Act. Eventhough the respondent No.1 contend that the accident occurred due to the negligence of petitioner only, but they have not adduced any supportive oral and documentary evidence in this regard.
13. The respondent No.1 in their support got examined the RTO superintendent as RW.1 who had produced and got marked the RC and driving licence of one Nandish as per Ex.R.1 to 3. So as per Ex.R.1 to 3 it is clear that the van driver is able to driver any heavy transport vehicle and there is no seperate endorsement for school bus.
14. Further the Manager of the respondent No.1 was got examined herself as Rw.2 by reiterating all the averments of the written statement in her affidavit. The Rw.2 in her cross examination has admitted that " it is true that chargesheet is not filed for contributory negligence, witness says that they have not done the investigation properly. It is true that the policy is in force on the date of accident. It is true that the chargesheet is filed against the driver of our insured vehicle. We have not challenged the chargesheet. It is (SCCH3) 8 MVC.No.5464/17 true that RTO has stated that no separate endorsement is required for driving school bus".
15. The counsel for petitioner has relied upon unreported decisions wherein it was observed that the insurer is liable to pay the compensation notwithstanding the fact that the driver of the vehicle did not possesses valid driving licence to drive a vehicle which was not classified or mentioned in the driving licence. Even the insurance company was directed to pay to the third party and then to recover from the RC owner of the vehicle.
16. The RW.2 has got marked the policy as per Ex.R.4 which is valid as on the date of accident. Hence with the available documents on record and in absence of rebuttal evidence by respondent No.1 with respect to the negligence of the petitioner in causing the accident, I am of opinion that the petitioner has proved that he had sustained injuries only due to the rash and negligent driving of Van driver. Hence there is no grounds to believe that the accident occurred due to negligence of petitioner. Therefore, I am opinion that the injuries sustained by the petitioner due to negligence of School Van driver only. Hence, I answered issue No.1 in affirmative.
(SCCH3) 9 MVC.No.5464/17
17. Issue No.2: Further the petitioner has stated that due to the accident he is not able to do work as earlier and sustained disability. In this regard he has got examined Neurosurgeon as Pw.2 who had stated that he had assessed the disability of 10% and it is to be permanent. The Pw.2 had got marked OPD record, Neurophychological assessment report and Audiometry report as per Ex.P.13 to 15.
18. Therefore, as per Ex.P.13 to 15 and as per the oral evidence of Pw.2, I am of opinion that the petitioner has sustained disability of 10% only which is just and proper. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the compensation under the following heads:
a). Loss of future income: The petitioner has stated that he was working as Marketing and Delivery Boy and earning Rs.20,000/ p.m. In this regard he had not produced any documents. Hence, I just feel it proper to consider the notional income. As on the date of accident the notional income can be fixed at Rs.11,000/. The petitioner is aged 30 years at the time of accident as per Ex.P.11 copy of Driving license and hence the proper multiplier comes to "17". Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for loss of future (SCCH3) 10 MVC.No.5464/17 income as Rs.11,000 x 12 x 17 x 10/100 = Rs.2,24,400/ under this head.
b). Pain and sufferings during treatment period: The petitioner was got admitted in hospital as inpatient from 23082017 to 25082017. Even there are no other documents on behalf of the petitioner. But, as per the discharge summary marked as Ex.P.7, I just feel it proper to award Rs.20,000/ under this head.
c). Towards medical expenses : The petitioner got marked entire medical bills and prescriptions as per Ex.P.8 to 10 which amounts to Rs.39,180/. There is no serious dispute with regard to medical bills produced and marked by the petitioner. Hence the petitioner is entitled for Rs.39,180/ under this head.
d). Loss of income during laid up period:-
Admittedly the Pw.1 as per available records could not do any work for about 15 days after the accident. Hence, he is entitled for Rs.10,000/ under this head.
e). Loss of amenities and nutrition food:-
The Pw.1 had not produced any documents to show that he had incurred amount towards amenities and nutritious food. But looking into the period of treatment and the nature of injuries, I just feel it (SCCH3) 11 MVC.No.5464/17 proper to award a sum of Rs.10,000/ under this head.
f). Towards attendent charges and conveyance: The Pw.1 was admitted to hospital as inpatient for nearly 03 days and he has to be looked by somebody in the hospital. It is true that no such documents was produced. In absence of documents, I just feel it proper to award a sum of Rs.10,000/ under this head.
19. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs.3,13,580/ (Three lakhs thirteen thousand five hundred eighty only).
20. Regarding liability: The petitioner has proved that he had sustained injuries only due to the rash and negligent driving of school van driver. The said vehicle is owned by the respondent No.2 and it is duly insured with the respondent No.1. Hence, both respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Hence, Issue No.2 is answered partly in affirmative.
21. Issue No.3: In view of my findings on issues No.1 and 2 as above and with regard to awarding the interest is concerned, the petitioner is entitled for simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum (SCCH3) 12 MVC.No.5464/17 from the date of petition till deposit. As such I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The claim petition filed by the petitioner U/Sec 166 of the M.V. Act is hereby allowed in part, with costs.
The petitioner is entitled for Rs.3,13,580/ (Three lakhs thirteen thousand five hundred eighty only) as compensation with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. However, in view of valid insurance policy, respondent No.1 Insurance Company is directed to pay the total awarded amount and shall deposit the same within time stipulated under section 168(3) of M.V. Act.
On deposit of the compensation amount together with interest, entire amount shall be released to the petitioner through Epayment on proper identification without any further proceedings.
The advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,00000.
(SCCH3) 13 MVC.No.5464/17 Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, got typed by him, then corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 27th day of July 2022).
(SHILPA.K.S) VII Addl. Judge and ACMM, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the petitioner:
P.W.1 Sathish.V.M P.W.2 Shailesh.A.V
List of documents marked on behalf of the petitioner :
Ex.P.1 Copy of Complaint
Ex.P.2 Copy of FIR
Ex.P.3 Copy of spot Mahazar
Ex.P.4 Copy of spot Sketch
Ex.P.5 Copy of Wound certificate
Ex.P.6 Copy of Final report
Ex.P.7 Discharge summary
Ex.P.8 Prescriptions (02 in Nos.)
Ex.P.9 Medical bills (04 in Nos.) for Rs.33,853/
Ex.P.10 Medical bills (07 in Nos.) for Rs.5,327/
Ex.P.11 Notarized copy of the Driving license
Ex.P.12 Notarized copy of the Aadhaar card
Ex.P.13 OPD record
Ex.P.14 Neurophychological assessment report
Ex.P.15 Audiometry report
(SCCH3) 14 MVC.No.5464/17
List of witnesses examined for the Respondents:
R.W.1 Vinodh R.W.2 G.Jayashree
List of documents marked on behalf of the Respondents:
Ex.R.1 Authorization letter
Ex.R.2 RC certificate of vehicle bearing reg.
No.KA51B4169
Ex.R.3 The Driving license extract of Nandhish.N
Ex.R.4 Copy of Policy
(SHILPA.K.S)
VII Addl. Judge and ACMM,
Bengaluru.