Bangalore District Court
H) Without Prejudice And Certainly Not ... vs Against His Alleged Mahindra Jeep ... on 4 July, 2015
THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL. SMALL CAUSES AND ADDL.
MACT., BANGALORE, (SCCH-7)
Dated this, the 4th day of July, 2015.
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.6410/2013
C/w. M.V.C.No.6411/2013
Sri. B. M. Shivakumar, ..... PETITIONER IN
Aged about 33 years, M.V.C.No.6410/2013
S/o Manjunath,
R/o Kamanakatte Circle,
Guluru, Kasaba Hobli,
Tumkur Taluk and District.
(By Sri. Harisha. S. K., Adv.,)
V/s
1.Ramachandra Swamy, ..... RESPONDENTS IN
Major, M.V.C.No.6410/2013
S/o Nataraj,
No.339, BHEL Mini Colony,
Pipeline, Mallasandra,
Bangalore - 560 057.
(R.C. Owner of Mahindra Jeep/Car
bearing Registration No.KA-04-N-3998)
2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Opp: Rama Mandira,
General Kariyappa Road (Barline Road),
K.R. Extension,
Tumkur - 572 102.
(Insurer of Mahindra Jeep/Car bearing
Registration No.KA-04-N-3998)
SCCH-7 2 MVC .6410 & 6411/2013
(PolicyNo.67230131130200002662
Valid from 04.06.2013 to 03.06.2014)
(R-1 By Sri. Lingaraju, Adv.,)
(R-2 By Sri. S.N.Ramaswamy, Adv.,)
Sri. Arun Kumar. S., PETITIONER IN
Aged about 21 years, M.V.C.No.6411/2013
S/o Shashikumar,
R/o Soolekerepalya,
Kasaba Hobli,
Turuvekere Taluk,
Tumkur District.
V/s
1.Ramachandra Swamy, .....RESPONDENTS IN
Major, M.V.C.No.6411/2013
S/o Nataraj,
No.339, BHEL Mini Colony,
Pipeline, Mallasandra,
Bangalore - 560 057.
(R.C. Owner of Mahindra Jeep/Car
bearing Registration No.KA-04-N-3998)
2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Opp: Rama Mandira,
General Kariyappa Road (Barline Road),
K.R. Extension,
Tumkur - 572 102.
(Insurer of Mahindra Jeep/Car bearing
Registration No.KA-04-N-3998)
(PolicyNo.67230131130200002662
Valid from 04.06.2013 to 03.06.2014)
(R-1 By Sri. Lingaraju, Adv.,)
(R-2 By Sri. S. N. Ramaswamy, Adv.,)
SCCH-7 3 MVC .6410 & 6411/2013
COMMON JUDGMENT
As per the Order dated 20.12.2014 passed on Memo in
M.V.C.No.6410/2013, M.V.C.No.6411/2013 is clubbed with the
said M.V.C.No.6410/2013 and the common evidence is recorded
in the said case. Hence, M.V.C.No.6410/2010 and
M.V.C.No.6411/2013, are pending for consideration and disposal
before this Tribunal by passing a common judgment.
2. The Petitioner in M.V.C.No.6410/2013 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 2,00,000/- with interest at the rate of
12% p.a. and costs.
3. The brief averments of the Petitioner's case in M.V.C.
No.6410/2013 are as follows;
a) On 30.06.2013 at about 11.20 p.m., himself and
others were standing on the side of the Car bearing Registration
No.KA-44-M-647, which was parked on the side of Turuvekere -
Dabbeghatta Road, opposite to B.G.S. Chowltry, Turuvekere Town,
at that time, a Mahindra Car/Jeep bearing Registration No.KA-04-
N-3998 was standing at about 8 feet distance and all of a sudden,
the said standing Car came and dashed against the Car bearing
Registration No.KA-44-M-647 and then, dashed against him and
one B.M. Shivakumar. Due to which, himself and Shivakumar
were knocked to the ground and sustained severe injuries.
b) Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to the
Government Hospital, Turuvekere and admitted as an inpatient.
The duty Doctors took X-rays and examined clinically and
SCCH-7 4 MVC .6410 & 6411/2013
radiological and found that, he has sustained abrasion over left
front region, Grazed abrasion over left shoulder with tenderness
and restricted movement of left shoulder, abrasion and tenderness
over anterior part of left wrist joint, severe tenderness present in
left flank and left iliac crest and other injuries. He was treated
conservatively and discharged with an advice to take complete bed
rest, continue medicines and to take follow-up treatment as an
outpatient. Accordingly, he is still under continuous follow-up
treatment as an inpatient. So far, he has spent Rupees 20,000/-
towards treatment, medicines, conveyance, attendant charges,
nourishing and other incidental expenses.
c) In spite of all better possible treatment taken and due
to multiple abrasions all over the body, he is still suffering with
severe pain all over the body, he has lost his normal activeness in
his life.
d) Prior to the accident he was hale and healthy and he
was agriculture and sericulture and earning more than Rupees
9,000/- per month. After this accident, due to multiple injuries,
he is not able to do his work till this day, thereby, he is
undergoing great mental shock, agony, discomfort and financial
loss. The disability is coming in the way of his day to day activities
and avocation.
e) The accident took place due to sole rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the Car/Jeep bearing Registration No.KA-
04-N-3998 and Turuvekere Police have registered a case against
the driver of the said Car/Jeep in their Crime No.144/2013 for the
offences punishable under Section 279, 337 and 338 of IPC and
charge sheeted him. Hence, this Petition.
SCCH-7 5 MVC .6410 & 6411/2013
4. In response to the notice, the Respondent No.1 has
appeared before this Tribunal through his Learned Counsel. But,
inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the Respondent No.1 has
not filed the written statement.
5. In response to the notice, the Respondent No.2 has
appeared before this Tribunal through its Learned Counsel and
has filed the written statement.
6. The Respondent No.2 inter-alia denying the entire case
of the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.6410/2013, has further contended
as follows;
a) The petition is not maintainable either under law or on
facts.
b) It is a false claim and has been wrongly stated as
caused the alleged accident. Hence, the petition is not
maintainable.
c) Without admitting the alleged accident, involvement of
the Mahindra Jeep, eligibility of the Petitioner to claim
compensation and their alleged obligation, it is respectfully
submitted that, it had issued the policy in favor of the 1st
Respondent, against his alleged Mahindra Jeep bearing
Registration No.KA-04-N-3998, covering the period of the alleged
accident. However, the liability/obligation, if any of it, shall be
strictly subject to proving the alleged accident/cause of action, the
involvement of the said alleged Mahindra Jeep in the alleged
accident, subject to the policy terms and conditions, limits,
limitations and exceptions and endorsements of the policy and law
governing thereto and also the other enactments corresponding to
SCCH-7 6 MVC .6410 & 6411/2013
the incident and other aspect and matters involved in adjudication
and finally for the ascertainment of their liability.
d) The liability, if any, of it, shall be as per the policy of
insurance, that has been issued against the said alleged Mahindra
Jeep and subject to the terms and conditions and the insured was
obligated to satisfy and act in accordance with Sections 3, 5 and
15 of M.V. Act, 1988 and Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles
Rules and also subject to defence under Sections 147 and 149 of
the said Act. There is no obligation on the part of it to indemnify
the alleged liability of the insured, i.e., the 1st Respondent, under
the said policy, unless, the Petitioner proves the involvement of
the said alleged vehicle and the liability and obligation of it, in
accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy and the
accident is caused by the said vehicle.
e) Without prejudice, the alleged Mahindra Jeep bearing
Registration No.KA-04-N-3998 was not at all involved in the
alleged accident. The complaint has been lodged before the
jurisdictional Police with all malafide intentions, when the
inordinate lapse of time after the alleged suffering of the alleged
accident. Absolutely no bonafide reasons are demonstrated for
belated complaint lodged before the jurisdictional Police and the
untenable and frivolous reason addressed for the delay in lodging
the complaint and FIR, the Petitioner has falsely implicated the
alleged insured vehicle by colluding with the 1st
Respondent/owner of the alleged insured vehicle as well as the
jurisdictional Police, to get unlawful gain against it. Hence, it is
not liable to pay any compensation and mercilessly, the petition
has to be rejected in limine of the threshold itself, with exemplary
costs.
SCCH-7 7 MVC .6410 & 6411/2013
f) If at all, the alleged cause of action is proved to be true,
the insured/ 1st Respondent has knowingly entrusted the vehicle
to the driver, who had no valid and effective driving licence to
drive the class of the vehicle and thereby, has breached the terms
and conditions of the policy and hence, it has no obligation to
indemnify any amount, against the alleged cause of action.
g) Without prejudice to any of the defences that, the
police documents are not revealing truth about the alleged
Mahindra Jeep. As the real driver, who drove the alleged Mahindra
Jeep on the alleged day and time of the alleged accident, since had
no valid and effective driving licence to drive it, the accused driver
has been substituted, with ulterior motives with active support of
the persons/Authorities concerned. The Petitioner is called upon
to prove high speed case independent of the police document, as
the Police documents have been made suiting to the need of the
Petitioner.
h) Without prejudice and certainly not admitting the
claims of the Petitioner about the alleged accident, the Petitioner
is called upon to prove that, there was no negligence on the part of
the Petitioner, he had not drunk and walking on the road and
there was no violation of traffic rules and contributory negligence
on his part, to any extent, in occurrence of the alleged accident
and he was able in all respects to standing/walking, cross the
road, was crossing the road at the permitted place, as the
averments of the petition and the documents make it clear that, it
is a case of contributory negligence, if rest of the claims of the
Petitioner is proved to be true.
SCCH-7 8 MVC .6410 & 6411/2013
i) Without prejudice, not admitting the claims of the
Petitioner, if this Hon'ble Tribunal finding that, there is
contributory negligence on the part of the Petitioner and the
alleged driver of the alleged Mahindra Jeep, the compensation has
to be reduced to the extent of negligence of the Petitioner.
j) Without prejudice, the situation of the alleged accident
has been totally twisted and given wrong description of it by the
Petitioner by colluding with the Police and the situation has been
described as if the alleged Mahindra Jeep is responsible for the
alleged accident. The claimed facts are far from truth. The
unknown vehicle had hit and run away from the spot, while he
was crossing/walking/standing on the road with carelessly,
unmindfully and negligent manner. The Police documents have
been wrongly drawn and prepared.
k) It may be permitted to avail all or any of the defences
available to the insured, under the circumstances enunciated
under Section 170 of the M.V. Act, 1988.
l) As per Section 134(c) of M.V. Act, 1988, it is the
mandatory duty of the insured/1st Respondent 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 insured/1st Respondent has not complied with
statutory and contractual obligation/requirement. Hence, it is not
liable to indemnify the 1st Respondent against the alleged cause of
action.
m) As per Section 158(6) of M.V. Act, 1988, it is a
mandatory duty of the jurisdictional/concerned Police Station to
SCCH-7 9 MVC .6410 & 6411/2013
forward all the relevant documents to the concerned insurer
within 30 days from the date of the information, but, the
jurisdictional Police have failed to forward the documents and not
obeyed/complied with the statutory responsibility and obligation.
n) The Petitioner is called upon to state that, he has not
filed any other petition/application before any other
Court/Tribunal /Authority in respect of the same alleged accident
and against it and the present petition is maintainable.
o) Even if the Petitioner proves the alleged accident,
involvement of the vehicle, injuries, treatment etc., the Petitioner
is not entitled to the amount claimed in the petition and the claim
is highly exaggerated and has been made baselessly.
p) Even if the Petitioner proves his claims and
contentions, the amount of compensation as claimed is baseless,
fanciful and highly exaggerated. The Petitioner is not entitled for
the same.
q) In the event of award in the claim petition, it is liable to
pay interest at 6% as per the various decisions of the Apex Court
and interest not payable over the amount paid to the Petitioner in
respect of future medical expenses or if he delays the proceedings,
no interest need to be granted on such future expenses and
interest is to be paid only over the amount which has become
payable on the date of award as per the decisions of the Apex
Court in R.D. Hattangadi V/s Pest Control India Ltd., in AIR 1995
SC 755.
SCCH-7 10 MVC .6410 & 6411/2013
r) If the Petitioner delays the proceedings, he is not
entitled for any interest for the period spent before this Hon'ble
Tribunal at the behest. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.
7. The Petitioner in M.V.C.No.6411/2013 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 10,00,000/- with interest at the rate of
12% p.a. and costs.
8. The brief averments of the Petitioner's case in M.V.C.
No.6411/2013 are as follows;
a) On 30.06.2013 at about 11.20 p.m., himself and
others were standing on the side of the Car bearing Registration
No.KA-44-M-647, which was parked on the side of the Turuvekere
- Dabbeghatta Road, opposite to B.G.S. Chowltry, Turuvekere
Town, at that time, a Mahindra Car/Jeep bearing Registration
No.KA-04-N-3998 was standing at about 8 feet distance and all of
a sudden, the said standing Car came and dashed against the Car
bearing Registration No.KA-44-M-647 and then, dashed against
him and one B.M. Shivakumar. Due to which, himself and
Shivakumar were knocked to the ground and sustained severe
injuries.
b) Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to the
Government Hospital, Turuvekere and admitted as an inpatient.
The duty Doctors took X-rays and examined clinically and
radiological and found that, he has sustained abrasion over left
front region, Grazed abrasion over left shoulder with tenderness
and restricted movement of left shoulder, abrasion and tenderness
SCCH-7 11 MVC .6410 & 6411/2013
over anterior part of left wrist joint, severe tenderness present in
left flank and left iliac crest and other injuries. He was treated
conservatively and discharged with an advise to take complete bed
rest, continue medicines and to take follow-up treatment as an
outpatient. Accordingly, he is still under continuous follow-up
treatment as an inpatient. So far, he has spent Rupees 20,000/-
towards treatment, medicines, conveyance, attendant charges,
nourishing and other incidental expenses.
c) In spite of all better possible treatment taken and due
to multiple abrasions all over the body, he is still suffering with
severe pain all over the body he has lost his normal activeness in
his life.
d) Prior to the accident, he was hale and healthy and he
was agriculture and sericulture and earning more than Rupees
9,000/- per month. After this accident, due to multiple injuries,
he is not able to do his work till this day, thereby, he is
undergoing great mental shock, agony, discomfort and financial
loss. The disability is coming in the way of his day to day activities
and avocation.
e) The accident took place due to sole rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the Car/Jeep bearing Registration No.KA-
04-N-3998 and Turuvekere Police have registered a case against
the driver of the said Car/Jeep in their Crime No.144/2013 for the
offences punishable under Section 279, 337 and 338 of IPC and
charge sheeted him. Hence, this Petition.
9. In response to the notice, the Respondent No.1 has
appeared before this Tribunal through his Learned Counsel. But,
SCCH-7 12 MVC .6410 & 6411/2013
inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the Respondent No.1 has
not filed the written statement.
10. In response to the notice, the Respondent No.2 has
appeared before this Tribunal through its Learned Counsel and
has filed the written statement.
11. The Respondent No.2 inter-alia denying the entire case
of the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.6411/2013, has further contended
as follows;
a) The petition is not maintainable either under law or on
facts.
b) It is a false claim and has been wrongly stated as
caused the alleged accident. Hence, the petition is not
maintainable.
c) Without admitting the alleged accident, involvement of
the Mahindra Jeep, eligibility of the Petitioner to claim
compensation and their alleged obligation, it is respectfully
submitted that, it had issued the policy in favor of the 1st
Respondent, against his alleged Mahindra Jeep bearing
Registration No.KA-04-N-3998, covering the period of the alleged
accident. However, the liability/obligation, if any of it, shall be
strictly subject to proving the alleged accident/cause of action, the
involvement of the said alleged Mahindra Jeep in the alleged
accident, subject to the policy terms and conditions, limits,
limitations and exceptions and endorsements of the policy and law
governing thereto and also the other enactments corresponding to
the incident and other aspect and matters involved in adjudication
and finally for the ascertainment of their liability.
SCCH-7 13 MVC .6410 & 6411/2013
d) The liability, if any, of it, shall be as per the policy of
insurance, that has been issued against the said alleged Mahindra
Jeep and subject to the terms and conditions and the insured was
obligated to satisfy and act in accordance with Sections 3, 5 and
15 of M.V. Act, 1988 and Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles
Rules and also subject to defence under Sections 147 and 149 of
the said Act. There is no obligation on the part of it to indemnify
the alleged liability of the insured, i.e., the 1st Respondent, under
the said policy, unless, the Petitioner proves the involvement of
the said alleged vehicle and the liability and obligation of it, in
accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy and the
accident is caused by the said vehicle.
e) Without prejudice, the alleged Mahindra Jeep bearing
Registration No.KA-04-N-3998 was not at all involved in the
alleged accident. The complaint has been lodged before the
jurisdictional Police with all malafide intentions, when the
inordinate lapse of time after the alleged suffering of the alleged
accident. Absolutely no bonafide reasons are demonstrated for
belated complaint lodged before the jurisdictional Police and the
untenable and frivolous reason addressed for the delay in lodging
the complaint and FIR, the Petitioner has falsely implicated the
alleged insured vehicle by colluding with the 1st
Respondent/owner of the alleged insured vehicle as well as the
jurisdictional Police, to get unlawful gain against it. Hence, it is
not liable to pay any compensation and mercilessly, the petition
has to be rejected in limine of the threshold itself, with exemplary
costs.
SCCH-7 14 MVC .6410 & 6411/2013
f) If at all, the alleged cause of action is proved to be true,
the insured/ 1st Respondent has knowingly entrusted the vehicle
to the driver, who had no valid and effective driving licence to
drive the class of the vehicle and thereby, has breached the terms
and conditions of the policy and hence, it has no obligation to
indemnify any amount, against the alleged cause of action.
g) Without prejudice to any of the defences that, the
police documents are not revealing truth about the alleged
Mahindra Jeep. As the real driver, who drove the alleged Mahindra
Jeep on the alleged day and time of the alleged accident, since had
no valid and effective driving licence to drive it, the accused driver
has been substituted, with ulterior motives with active support of
the persons/Authorities concerned. The Petitioner is called upon
to prove high speed case independent of the police document, as
the Police documents have been made suiting to the need of the
Petitioner.
h) Without prejudice and certainly not admitting the
claims of the Petitioner about the alleged accident, the Petitioner
is called upon to prove that, there was no negligence on the part of
the Petitioner, he had not drunk and walking on the road and
there was no violation of traffic rules and contributory negligence
on his part, to any extent, in occurrence of the alleged accident
and he was able in all respects to standing/walking, cross the
road, was crossing the road at the permitted place, as the
averments of the petition and the documents make it clear that, it
is a case of contributory negligence, if rest of the claims of the
Petitioner is proved to be true.
SCCH-7 15 MVC .6410 & 6411/2013
i) Without prejudice, not admitting the claims of the
Petitioner, if this Hon'ble Tribunal finding that, there is
contributory negligence on the part of the Petitioner and the
alleged driver of the alleged Mahindra Jeep, the compensation has
to be reduced to the extent of negligence of the Petitioner.
j) Without prejudice, the situation of the alleged accident
has been totally twisted and given wrong description of it by the
Petitioner by colluding with the Police and the situation has been
described as if the alleged Mahindra Jeep is responsible for the
alleged accident. The claimed facts are far from truth. The
unknown vehicle had hit and run away from the spot, while he
was crossing/walking/standing on the road with carelessly,
unmindfully and negligent manner. The Police documents have
been wrongly drawn and prepared.
k) It may be permitted to avail all or any of the defences
available to the insured, under the circumstances enunciated
under Section 170 of the M.V. Act, 1988.
l) As per Section 134(c) of M.V. Act, 1988, it is the
mandatory duty of the insured/1st Respondent 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 insured/1st Respondent has not complied with
statutory and contractual obligation/requirement. Hence, it is not
liable to indemnify the 1st Respondent against the alleged cause of
action.
m) As per Section 158(6) of M.V. Act, 1988, it is a
mandatory duty of the jurisdictional/concerned Police Station to
SCCH-7 16 MVC .6410 & 6411/2013
forward all the relevant documents to the concerned insurer
within 30 days from the date of the information, but, the
jurisdictional Police have failed to forward the documents and not
obeyed/complied with the statutory responsibility and obligation.
n) The Petitioner is called upon to state that, he has not
filed any other petition/application before any other
Court/Tribunal /Authority in respect of the same alleged accident
and against it and the present petition is maintainable.
o) Even if the Petitioner proves the alleged accident,
involvement of the vehicle, injuries, treatment etc., the Petitioner
is not entitled to the amount claimed in the petition and the claim
is highly exaggerated and has been made baselessly.
p) Even if the Petitioner proves his claims and
contentions, the amount of compensation as claimed is baseless,
fanciful and highly exaggerated. The Petitioner is not entitled for
the same.
q) In the event of award in the claim petition, it is liable to
pay interest at 6% as per the various decisions of the Apex Court
and interest not payable over the amount paid to the Petitioner in
respect of future medical expenses or if he delays the proceedings,
no interest need to be granted on such future expenses and
interest is to be paid only over the amount which has become
payable on the date of award as per the decisions of the Apex
Court in R.D. Hattangadi V/s Pest Control India Ltd., in AIR 1995
SC 755.
SCCH-7 17 MVC .6410 & 6411/2013
r) If the Petitioner delays the proceedings, he is not
entitled for any interest for the period spent before this Hon'ble
Tribunal at the behest. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.
12. Based on the above said pleadings, I have framed the
following Issues;
ISSUES
In M.V.C.No.6410/2013
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that, the
accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the Mahindra
Armada Car bearing Registration No.KA-
04-N-3998 by its driver and in the said
accident, he sustained injuries?
2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for
compensation and damages? If so, how
much and from whom?
3. What Order?
ISSUES
In M.V.C.No.6411/2013
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that, the
accident occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of the Mahindra Armada Car
bearing Registration No.KA-04-N-3998 by
its driver and in the said accident, he
sustained injuries?
2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for
compensation and damages? If so, how
much and from whom?
3. What Order?
SCCH-7 18 MVC .6410 & 6411/2013
13. In order to prove their case, the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.6410/2013 himself has been examined as P.W.1 and
has also examined one witness as P.W.3 by filing the affidavits as
their examination-in-chief and has placed reliance upon Ex.P.1 to
Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.13 to Ex.P.15 and the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.6411/2013 himself has been examined as P.W.2 by
filing an affidavit as his examination-in-chief and has placed
reliance upon Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.12. On the other hand, the
Respondent No.2 has not adduced any evidence on its behalf.
14. Heard the arguments.
15. My answers to the above said Issues are as follows;
M.V.C.No.6410/2013
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative,
The Petitioner is
entitled for
compensation of
Rupees 97,610/- with
interest at the rate of
6% p.a. from the date of
the petition till the date
of payment, from the
Respondent No.2.
Issue No.3 : As per the final Order,
M.V.C.No.6411/2013
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative,
SCCH-7 19 MVC .6410 & 6411/2013
Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative,
The Petitioner is
entitled for global
compensation of
Rupees 40,000/- with
interest at the rate of
6% p.a. from the date of
the petition till the date
of payment, from the
Respondent No.2.
Issue No.3 : As per the final Order,
for the following;
REASONS
16. ISSUE NO.1 IN BOTH THE CASES :- The P.W.1, who
is the Petitioner No.1 in M.V.C.No.6410/2010, has stated in his
examination-in-chief that, on 30.06.2013 at about 11.20 p.m.,
when himself and others were standing on the side of the Car
bearing Registration No.KA-44-M-647, which was parked on the
side of the Turuvekere - Dabbeghatta Road, opposite to B.G.S.
Chowltry, Turuvekere Town, at that time, a Mahindra Car/Jeep
bearing Registration No.KA-04-N-3998 was standing at about 8
feet distance and all of a sudden, the said standing Car came and
dashed against the Car bearing Registration No.KA-44-M-647 and
then dashed against him and one Arun Kumar, who is the
Petitioner in M.V.C.No.6411/2013. He has further stated that, due
to impact, himself and the said Arunkumar were knocked to the
ground and sustained severe injuries and immediately after the
accident, he was shifted to the Government Hospital, Turuvekere,
wherein, necessary treatment was given and then shifted to
Adichunchanagiri Hospital, B.G. Nagar and admitted as an
inpatient. He has further stated that, the duty Doctors took X-rays
SCCH-7 20 MVC .6410 & 6411/2013
and examined clinically and radiological and found that, he has
sustained abrasion over left front region, Grazed abrasion over left
shoulder with tenderness and restricted movement of left
shoulder, abrasion and tenderness over anterior part of left wrist
joint, severe tenderness present in left flank and left iliac crest and
other injuries and he has undergone necessary operation to the
fractures and all the injuries treated as an inpatient conservatively
from 01.07.2013 to 11.07.2013. He has further stated that, the
accident took place due to sole rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the Car/Jeep bearing Registration No.KA-04-N-3998 and
Turuvekere Police have registered a case as against the driver of
the said Car/Jeep in their Crime No.144/2013 for the offences
punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC and charge
sheeted him.
17. The P.W.2, who is the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.6411/2003, has also stated the same evidence of
P.W.1, in his examination-in-chief. He has further stated that,
immediately after the accident, he was shifted to the
Government Hospital, Turuvekere and admitted as an inpatient
and the duty Doctors took X-rays and examined clinically and
radiologically and found that, he had suffered Abrassion over
left Frontal region, Grazed Abrasion over left shoulder with
tenderness and restricted movements of left shoulder, Abrasion
and Tenderness over anterior part of left wrist joint, severe
tenderness in the left flank left iliac crest and other injuries and
he was treated conservatively.
18. No doubt, the P.W.1 in his cross-examination has
stated that, on 30.06.2013, he was proceeding to attend the
marriage reception and he does not know the time of marriage
SCCH-7 21 MVC .6410 & 6411/2013
reception and the distance in between Goluru to BGS Choultry
is 60 km and they were two persons to proceed to the said place
on Motor Cycle and the said Motor Cycle owned by his friend
Kempanna. He has further stated that, he knows the Puttaraju,
who has also came on another Motor Cycle and when they left
Goluru, the time was 6.00 p.m. and Kempanna was riding their
Motor Cycle. He has further stated that, he has no hurdle to
produce the driving licence relating to Kempanna and he
doesnot know the Omini Car owned by whom and whether the
Mahendra Jeep dashed to front or back portion of the said
Omini Car. He has further stated that, he has not seen the
number of Omini Car and the offending Mahindra Jeep before
the accident and he does not know the registration number of
Motor Cycle, on which they were proceeding. He has further
stated that, he has not deposed before the criminal Court in the
criminal case and the Police have not recorded his statement,
when he was admitted in the Hospital to take treatment. It is
elicited from the mouth of P.W.2 by the Respondent No.2 that,
the road on which, he was standing is a width of 30 feet and
they were 4 - 5 persons standing and his village is 1 k.m. away
from the said Choultry. He has further stated that, he has not
given statement before the Police.
19. But, based on the above said evidence of P.W.1 and
P.W.2, which is elicited from their mouth by the Respondent
No.2, it cannot be thrown away from the above said oral version
of P.W.1 and P.W.2, as, to corroborate his oral version, the
Petitioner in M.V.C.No.6410/2013 has produced Ex.P.1 FIR,
Ex.P.2 Complaint, Ex.P.3 Spot Panchanama, Ex.P.4 Seizer
Panchanama, Ex.P.5 Wound Certificate, Ex.P.6 MVI Report 2 in
numbers, Ex.P.7 Charge Sheet and Ex.P.8 Discharge
SCCH-7 22 MVC .6410 & 6411/2013
Summaries 2 in numbers and to corroborate his oral version,
the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.6411/2013 has produced Ex.P.11
Wound Certificate and Ex.P.12 Discharge Summary, which
clearly disclosed about the very involvement of the Mahindra
Car/Jeep bearing Registration No.KA-04-N-3998 as well as its
driver in the said road traffic accident, which dashed to the Car
bearing Registration No.KA44-M-647 and then dashed to the
Petitioners on 30.06.2013 at 11.20 p.m. and they were standing
by the side of the said Car bearing Registration No.KA-44-M-
647 and the said accident was taken place only on the
negligence on the part of the driver of the said offending
Mahindra Car/Jeep bearing Registration No.KA-04-N-3998,
which is clear from the following discussion. Furthermore, the
Petitioner in M.V.C.No.6410/2013 has examined the Medical
Record Technician of Sri Adichunchanagiri Hospital Research
Centre as P.W.3, who has produced Ex.P.14 Inpatient Record
and Ex.P.15 X-ray film relating to the Petitioner and has stated
that, the said Petitioner has admitted in their Hospital an
inpatient. Furthermore, the P.W.1 in his cross-examination has
also clearly stated that, they were 4 persons standing in the
spot and after the accident, he was shifted to Turuvekere
Government Hospital and he was only ½ to ¾ hour in the said
Hospital and he was conscious, when he was shifted to BGS
Hospital. Further, the P.W.2 has also clearly stated in his cross-
examination that, he was standing outside the Choultry and
they were 4 - 5 persons were standing and except himself and
B.M. Shivakumar, i.e., Petitioner in M.V.C.No.6410/2013, the
others had not sustained any injuries. Furthermore, to consider
its defence, the Respondent No.2 has not adduced any evidence
and though the Respondent No.1 has appeared before this
SCCH-7 23 MVC .6410 & 6411/2013
Tribunal through his Learned Counsel, he has not filed the
written statement to contest the case of the Petitioners.
20. Ex.P.1 FIR and Ex.P.2 Complaint clearly disclosed
that, one Puttaraju S/o Mallikarjuna, who is the friend of the
Petitioners has lodged Ex.P.2 Complaint before the Turuvekere
Police by alleging that, on 30.06.2013 at 11.20 p.m., when
himself, Petitioners and other friends were standing by the said
of the Maruthi Omini Car bearing Registration No.KA-44-M-647,
at that time, the offending Mahindra Car/Jeep bearing
Registration No.KA-04-N-3998 was standing facing towards
Turuvekere and at the time, the driver of the said Car drove it
high speed, rash and negligent manner and dashed to the said
Maruthi Omini Car and thereafter, dashed to the Petitioners
and due to which, the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.6410/2013 had
sustained grievous injuries on his left shoulder, forehead, face
and nose and the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.6411/2013 had
sustained grievous injuries on his left shoulder, right back,
back head, face and legs and the driver of the said offending Car
was not stopped the vehicle at the accidental spot and due to
the said accident, both the vehicles caused damages and as
such he prayed necessary legal action as against the driver of
the offending vehicle and based on the said Ex.P.2 Complaint
the said Police have registered a criminal case as against the
driver of the Mahindra Car/Jeep bearing Registration No.KA-04-
N-3998 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337
and Section 187 of IMV Act under Crime No.144/2013. 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.
SCCH-7 24 MVC .6410 & 6411/2013
21. The contents of Ex.P.3 Spot Panchanama, Ex.P.4
Seizure Panchanama and Ex.P.6 MVI Reports 2 in numbers
clearly disclosed that, due to high speed, rash and negligent
manner of driving of the offending Mahindra Car/Jeep bearing
Registration No.KA-04-N-3998 by its driver itself the said
accident was taken place and during the course of investigation,
both the vehicles were seized. The damages caused to both the
vehicles are clearly mentioned in Ex.P.6 MVI Reports, which
clearly disclosed about the terrific impact of the said accident.
Further it is clearly mentioned in Ex.P.6 MVI Report that, the
said road traffic accident was not occurred due to any
mechanical defects of the said vehicles.
22. The contents of Ex.P.5 Wound Certificate disclosed
that, with a history of road traffic accident, which was caused
on 30.06.2013, the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.6410/2013 was
admitted in the Government Hospital, Turuvekere on
01.07.2013 at 12.05 a.m. and on examination, it is found that,
he had sustained injuries, i.e., Bilateral nosal bleeding,
abrasion present over right frontal region and over left eye brow
2 cm x 2 cm, Grazed abrasion at left infra scapular and infra
axillary region with tenderness, abrassion over both anterior
part of foot, abrassion at left maxillary region, i.e., 2 grievous
injuries and 2 Simple injuries.
23. The contents of Ex.P.8 Discharge Summaries 2 in
numbers and Ex.P.14 Inpatient record and Ex.P.15 X-ray film
further clearly disclosed that, to take treatment to the
accidental injuries, initially, the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.6410/2013 was admitted in the Government Hospital,
Turuvekere with a history of road traffic accident and he was
SCCH-7 25 MVC .6410 & 6411/2013
referred to higher center and thereafter, on the next day, he was
taken treatment in Sri Adichunchanagiri Hospital and Research
Centre by admitting as an inpatient from 01.07.2013 to
11.07.2013, i.e., for 11 days to take treatment to the said 2
grievous injuries and 3 simple injuries. From this, it is made
crystal clear that, in the said road traffic accident, the Petitioner
in M.V.C.No.6410/2013 had sustained 2 grievous injuries and 3
simple injuries.
24. The contents of Ex.P.11 Wound Certificate and
Ex.P.12 Discharge Summary clearly disclosed that, in the said
road traffic accident, the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.6411/2013 was
admitted in the Government Hospital, Turuvekere with a history
of road traffic accident and on examination, it is found that, he
had sustained injuries, i.e., Abrasion present over left frontal
region, Grazed abrasion present over left shoulder with
tenderness and restricted movement of left shoulder, Abrasion
and tenderness over anterior part of left wrist joint and Severe
tenderness present in left flank and left knee crest, i.e., 4 simple
injuries and he was discharged and referred to higher centre. It
is clear from the contents of Ex.P.12 Discharge Card that, with
a history of road traffic accident on 30.06.2013 at 11.20 p.m.
the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.6411/2013 had sustained injuries.
25. The contents of Ex.P.7 Charge Sheet clearly
disclosed that, since during the course of investigation, due to
high speed, rash and negligent manner of driving of the
Mahindra Car/Jeep bearing Registration No.KA-04-N-3998, the
said road traffic accident was taken place, which dashed to the
Petitioners, wherein, the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.6410/2013 had
sustained grievous injuries and Petitioner in
SCCH-7 26 MVC .6410 & 6411/2013
M.V.C.No.6411/2013 had sustained simple injuries and the
said accident was taken place on 30.06.2013 at 11.20 p.m., on
the mud footpath of the road, which was situated at opposite
Turuvekere Town B.G.S. Choultry and after the accident, the
driver of the offending vehicle was not stopped his vehicle on the
accidental spot and as such, after thorough investigation, the
Investigating Officer has filed a charge sheet as against the
driver of the offending vehicle for the offences punishable under
Section 279 and 337 of IPC.
26. The above said oral version of P.W.1 to P.W.3, as
well as the contents of Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8, Ex.P.11, Ex.P.12,
Ex.P.14 and Ex.P.15 are clearly corroborated with the case
made out by the Petitioners and from which, it is made crystal
clear that, the offending Mahindra Car/Jeep bearing
Registration No.KA-04-N-3998 as well as its driver are very
much involved in the said road traffic accident, wherein, the
Petitioner in M.V.C.No.6410/2013 had 2 grievous injuries and 3
simple injuries and the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.6411/2013 had
sustained 4 simple injuries. To deny or discard the same,
nothing is available on record on behalf of the Respondents.
27. Under the above said facts and circumstances as
well as the reasons given, this Tribunal has come to the
conclusion that, the Petitioner by adducing acceptable material
evidence, both oral and documentary, has established that, the
accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
offending Mahindra Car/Jeep bearing Registration No.KA-04-N-
3998, by its driver and in the said accident, the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.6410/2013 had sustained 2 grievous injuries and 3
simple injuries and the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.6411/2013 had
SCCH-7 27 MVC .6410 & 6411/2013
sustained 4 simple injuries. Accordingly, I answered Issue
No.1 in both the cases in the Affirmative.
28. ISSUE NO.2 in BOTH THE CASES :-
29. ISSUE NO.2 in M.V.C.No.6410/2013 :- The
Petitioner has not produced any authenticated documents to
consider his age at the time of accident. The P.W.1 in his cross-
examination has clearly stated that, he has not produced any
documents to show that, at the time of accident, he was 34
years old. He has denied the suggestion put to him that, at the
time of accident, he was 40 years old. Ex.P.5 Wound Certificate,
Ex.P.8 Discharge Summaries, Ex.P.14 Inpatient Records and
Ex.P.15 X-ray disclosed that, at the time of accident, the
Petitioner was 32 years old. But, Ex.P.7 Charge Sheet disclosed
that, at the time of accident, the Petitioner was 33 years old.
However, by considering the said medical documents, the age of
the Petitioner is considered as 32 years at the time of accident.
The same has not disputed by the Respondents while cross-
examining the P.W.1. Hence, the age of the Petitioner is
considered as 32 years at the time of accident.
30. The P.W.1 has stated that, prior to the accident, he
was hale and healthy and doing Tailoring work and earning
more than Rupees 12,000/- per month. To consider his
avocation and income, except his oral version, the Petitioner has
not produced any documents. The same has also been clearly
stated by the P.W.1 in his cross-examination by saying that, he
has not produced any documents to show that, at the time of
accident, he was doing Toiler work and he was earning more
than Rupees 12,000/- per month. However, at the time of
SCCH-7 28 MVC .6410 & 6411/2013
accident, the Petitioner was 32 years old, which disclosed that,
he is having a family with wife and children and as such, he is
duty bound to maintain his family by earning himself. By
considering the age of the Petitioner and family status, this
Tribunal feels that, it is just, proper and necessary to consider
the notional income of the Petitioner is of Rupees 6,000/- per
month at the time of accident. Hence, the notional income of the
Petitioner is considered as Rupees 6,000/- per month at the
time of accident.
31. The P.W.1 has stated that, he has undergone
necessary operation to the fracture and all the injuries treated
as inpatient conservatively from 01.07.2013 to 11.07.2013 and
discharged with an advise to take complete bed rest, continue
medicines and to take follow-up treatment as an outpatient.
32. While answering Issue No.1, based on Ex.P.5 Wound
Certificate, Ex.P.8 Discharge Summaries 2 in numbers, Ex.P.14
Inpatient Records and Ex.P.15 X-ray film, this Tribunal has
already come to the conclusion that, in the said road traffic
accident, the Petitioner had sustained 2 grievous injuries and 3
simple injuries and by admitting as an inpatient from
01.07.2013 to 11.07.2013, i.e., for 11 days, he took treatment
to the accidental injuries at Adichunchanagiri Hospital and
Research Centre. But, to consider that, after discharge, he has
taken regular follow-up treatment as per the advise of the
Doctor, the Petitioner has not produced any relevant medical
documents. Hence, the follow-up treatment taken by the
Petitioner as an outpatient as stated by him cannot be believed
and accept.
SCCH-7 29 MVC .6410 & 6411/2013
33. The P.W.1 has stated that, inspite of better
treatment taken, he is still suffering with permanent disability
and due to soft Tissue injury with fracture of 6th 7th Ribs on left
side, he cannot sleep on the left side, cannot breathe properly,
cannot sit for longer duration and due to head injury and
fracture nasal bone, he is suffering with severe headache,
giddiness often and often, his memory power is also reduced
and in total he has lost his normal activeness. He has further
stated that, after the accident due to injuries and disability, he
is not able to do his Tailoring work till this day and lost his
income and thereby, himself and his family members are
undergoing great mental shock, agony, discomfort and financial
hardship, as, he is only an earning member in their family and
the disability is coming in the way of his day to day activities
and avocation.
34. Based on the said oral version of P.W.1, it cannot be
believed and accept that, due to the said injuries, the Petitioner
is suffering from permanent physical and functional disability
and the said disability come in the way of his day to day
activities and avocation and as such, he has lost his earning
capacity and future income and prospects, as, except his oral
version, the Petitioner has not produced any disability
certificate issued by the competent Doctor to consider his
difficulties. Even the Petitioner has not examined the treated
Doctor as witness on his behalf in the present petition to
consider the difficulties and disability arising out of the
accidental injuries, inspite of taking best and required
treatment to the accidental injuries. Furthermore, the Petitioner
has not proved his avocation and income. More so, the
Petitioner has not produced any medical documents to show
SCCH-7 30 MVC .6410 & 6411/2013
that, after discharge, he has been regularly taking follow-up
treatment as per the advise of the Doctors. The same has also
been clearly admitted by the P.W.1 in his cross-examination.
Further, as per Ex.P.8 Discharge Summary and Ex.P.14
Inpatient Record, the Petitioner has not undergone any surgery
during the course of treatment to the said accidental injuries. In
this regard, the P.W.1 has clearly stated in his cross-
examination that, he has not undergone any operation in BGS
Hospital. The non-production of the disability certificate issued
by the competent Doctor is also admitted by the P.W.1 in his
cross-examination. Further, Ex.P.8 Discharge Summary issued
by the Adichunchanagiri Hospital and Research Centre does not
disclose the advise of the Doctor to take follow-up treatment
regularly. Further, by examining P.W.3, the Petitioner has only
produced Ex.P.14 Inpatient Record and Ex.P.15 X-ray film.
Therefore, the case made out by the Petitioner in respect of
permanent physical and functional disability due to the
accidental injuries cannot be believed and accept. Hence, the
Petitioner is not entitled for any compensation towards
permanent physical disability, i.e., loss of future income, loss of
earning capacity, loss of amenities of life and future medical
expenses.
35. As per Ex.P.5 Wound Certificate and evidence of
P.W.1, the Petitioner had sustained 2 grievous injuries and 3
simple injuries, in the road traffic accident. The Petitioner was
in the Hospital as an inpatient from 01.07.2013 to 11.07.2013,
i.e., 11 days. Due to the said injuries, the Petitioner could have
definitely suffered a lot of pain and agony. Considering the said
aspects, it is just, proper and necessary to award a sum of
Rupees 50,000/- towards pain and suffering.
SCCH-7 31 MVC .6410 & 6411/2013
36. The Petitioner had sustained 2 grievous injuries and
3 simple injuries and he was in the Hospital as an inpatient for
11 days and he could not do any work at least for 4 months and
thereby, he deprived the income. Therefore, at the rate of
Rupees 6,000/- per month, a sum of Rupees 24,000/- has to be
awarded towards loss of income during the laid up period.
37. The P.W.1 has stated that, he has spent a sum of
Rupees 80,000/- towards his medicines, treatment,
conveyances, nourishing food and attendant's charges. But, the
Petitioner has only produced Ex.P.9 Medical Bills 27 in
numbers, which is amounting of Rupees 8,610/- and Ex.P.10
Medical Prescriptions 16 in numbers. The Petitioner has taken
treatment at Adichunchanagiri Hospital and Research Center as
an inpatient from 01.07.2013 to 11.07.2013, i.e., for 11 days.
Considering the nature of the injuries and line of treatment
given to the Petitioner, the possibility of spending the said
amount for the medicines cannot be doubted. Therefore, it is
necessary to award the said actual medical expenses of Rupees
8,610/-, which covered under Ex.P.9 Medical bills to the
Petitioner.
38. As the Petitioner was 32 years at the time of accident
and as the P.W.1 has clearly stated that, during the course of
treatment, he was not underwent any surgery and as the
Petitioner has not stated anything about the future medical
assistance and its expenses, the Petitioner is not entitled for any
compensation towards marriage prospects and future medical
expenses.
SCCH-7 32 MVC .6410 & 6411/2013
39. As the Petitioner was taken treatment as an
inpatient for 11 days, it is necessary to award a sum of Rupees
5,000/- towards conveyance charges, Rupees 5,000/- towards
attendant charges and Rupees 5,000/- towards food,
nourishment and diet charges etc.,
40. In this way, the Petitioner is entitled for the following
amount of compensation:-
Sl. No. Compensation heads Compensation amount
1. Pain and sufferings Rs. 50,000-00
2. Loss of income during laid
Rs. 24,000-00
up period
3. Actual medical expenses Rs. 8,610-00
4. Conveyance Rs. 5,000-00
5. Attendant Charges Rs. 5,000-00
6. Food, Nourishment &
Rs. 5,000-00
Diet charges
TOTAL Rs. 97,610-00
41. In all, the Petitioner is entitled for total
compensation of Rupees 97,610/- along with interest at the rate
of 6% per annum on the above said sum from the date of
Petition till payment.
42. ISSUE No.2 in M.V.C.No.6411/2013 :- The P.W.2
has stated that, he was treated conservatively and discharged
with an advise to take complete bed rest, continue medicines
and to take follow-up treatment as an outpatient. He has
further stated that, accordingly, he is still under continuous
follow-up treatment as an outpatient and he has spent a sum of
Rupees 20,000/- towards his medicines, treatment,
conveyances, nourishing food ad Attendants charges. He has
SCCH-7 33 MVC .6410 & 6411/2013
further stated that, inspite of all better possible treatment
taken, he is still suffering with permanent disability and due to
multiple injures all over the body, he is still suffering with
severe pain all over the body and he has lost his normal
activeness in his life. He has further stated that, prior to the
accident, he was hale and healthy and doing agriculture work
and earning more than Rupees 9,000/- per month and after
this accident, due to injuries and disability, he is not able to do
any strenuous work till this day and lost his income and
thereby himself and his family members are undergoing great
mental shock, agony, discomfort and financial hardship. He has
further stated that, the disability is coming in the way of his day
to day activities and avocation.
43. No doubt, while answering Issue No.1, this Tribunal
has already come to the conclusion based on Ex.P.11 Wound
Certificate and Ex.P.12 Discharge Summary that, the Petitioner
had sustained injuries, i.e., Abrasion present over left frontal
region, Grazed abrasion present over left shoulder with
tenderness and restricted movement of left shoulder, Abrasion
and tenderness over anterior part of left wrist joint and Severe
tenderness present in left flank and left knee crest. But, based
on the above said oral version of P.W.2 and contents of Ex.P.11
Wound Certificate and Ex.P.12 Discharge Summary, it cannot
be believed and accept the case made out by the Petitioner that,
due to the said accidental injuries, he is suffering from
difficulties, as, in the said road traffic accident, the Petitioner
had only sustained 4 simple injuries, which is clear from the
contents of Ex.P.11 Wound Certificate and Ex.P.12 Discharge
Summary. Further except Ex.P.11 Wound Certificate and
Ex.P.12 Discharge Summary, the Petitioner has not produced
SCCH-7 34 MVC .6410 & 6411/2013
any authenticated documents to show that, he took continuous
treatment to the said accidental injuries and also taken follow-
up treatment as per the advise of the Doctors, who treated him.
The same has been clearly admitted by the P.W.2 in his cross-
examination by saying that, there are no documents for follow-
up treatment. Further, the Petitioner has not proved his
avocation and income at the time of accident by producing
relevant material documents. The same has also been clearly
admitted by the P.W.2 in his cross-examination by saying that,
he has not produced any documents to show that, he was doing
agriculture work and earning more than Rupees 9,000/- per
month at the time of accident. Hence, the Petitioner is not
entitled for the compensation under different heads. However,
as the Petitioner had sustained 4 simple injuries in the said
road traffic accident, which is clear from the contents of Ex.P.11
Wound Certificate, Ex.P.12 Discharge Summary and Ex.P.7
Charge Sheet, this Tribunal feels that, it is just, proper and
necessary to award a global compensation of Rupees 40,000/-
to the Petitioner, which is reasonable, fair and acceptable one.
Hence, the Petitioner is entitled for global compensation of
Rupees 40,000/-.
44. The Petitioner is entitled for global compensation of
Rupees 40,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per
annum on the above said sum from the date of Petition till
payment.
45. While answering Issue No.1 in both the cases, this
Tribunal has already come to the conclusion that, due to high
speed, rash and negligent manner of driving of the offending
Mahindra Car/Jeep bearing Registration No.KA-04-N-3998, the
SCCH-7 35 MVC .6410 & 6411/2013
accident was occurred by its driver and in the said road traffic
accident, the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.6410/2013 had sustained
2 grievous injuries and 3 simple injuries and the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.6411/2013 had sustained 4 simple injuries. Both the
Petitioners have clearly mentioned in the cause title of their
petitions that, the Respondent No.1 is a R.C. Owner and the
Respondent No.2 is an Insurer of the offending Mahindra
Car/Jeep bearing Registration No.KA-04-N-3998 and its Policy
No.67230131130200002662 and valid from 04.06.2013 to
03.06.2014. The Respondent No.2 in its written statement has
clearly stated that, it had issued the policy as against the
Mahindra Car/Jeep bearing Registration No.KA-04-N-3998 was
covering the period of alleged accident. From this, it is made
crystal clear that, at the time of accident, the Respondent No.1
was a registered owner and the Respondent No.2 is an insurer
of the said offending vehicle and its Insurance Policy was valid,
which covers the date of accident. Though, the Respondent No.1
has appeared before this Tribunal through his Learned Counsel,
inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, he has not filed the
written statement. From this, it appears that, the Respondent
No.1 has clearly admitted his ownership over the offending
vehicle at the time of accident. Further, there is no allegation
leveled as against the driver of the offending Mahindra Car/Jeep
bearing Registration No.KA-04-N-3998 in Ex.P.7 Charge sheet
that, at the time of accident, he was not having a valid and
effective driving licence to drive such class of vehicle. The
violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy by
the Respondent No.1 is not proved by the Respondent No.2.
Under such circumstances, the Respondent No.1 being a
registered owner and the Respondent No.2 being a an insurer of
the offending Mahindra Car/Jeep bearing Registration No.KA-
SCCH-7 36 MVC .6410 & 6411/2013
04-N-3998 are jointly and severally liable to pay the above said
compensation to both the Petitioners with interest at the rate of
6% p.a. from the date of petition till payment. Since, the
Respondent No.2 being an insurer shall indemnify the
Respondent No.1. Hence, Issue No.2 in M.V.C.No.6410/2013
and M.V.C.No.6411/2013 are answered accordingly.
46. ISSUE NO.3 IN BOTH THE CASES :- For the
aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
The petition filed by the Petitioners in M.V.C.No.6410/2013 and M.V.C.No.6411/2013 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, are hereby partly allowed with costs.
The Petitioner in M.V.C.No.6410/2013 is entitled for compensation of Rupees 97,610/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of payment, from the Respondent No.2.
The Petitioner in M.V.C.No.6411/2013 is entitled for global compensation of Rupees 40,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of payment, from the Respondent No.2.
The Respondent No.2 shall deposit the said compensation and interest in this SCCH-7 37 MVC .6410 & 6411/2013 Tribunal, within one month from the date of this order, in both the cases.
In the event of deposit of compensation and interest in both the cases, entire deposited amount relating to both the Petitioners shall be released in their favour through account payee cheques respectively, on proper identification.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rupees 1,000/- in each case.
Original copy of the judgment shall be kept in M.V.C.No.6410/2013 and the copy of the same shall be kept in M.V.C.No.6411/2013.
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 4th day of July, 2015.) (INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR) IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE PETITIONERS :-
P.W.1 : B.M.Shivakumar
P.W.2 : Arun Kumar
P.W.3 : Govindaraju
SCCH-7 38 MVC .6410 & 6411/2013
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 Seizure Panchanama
Ex.P.5 True Copy of Wound Certificate
Ex.P.6 True Copy of MVI Report
Ex.P.7 True Copy of Charge Sheet
Ex.P.8 Discharge Summaries
Ex.P.9 Medical Bills (27 in nos.)
Ex.P.10 Medical Prescriptions
Ex.P.11 True Copy of Wound Certificate
Ex.P.12 Discharge Summary
Ex.P.13 Authorization Letter dated 04.04.2015
Ex.P.14 Inpatient Record
Ex.P.15 X-ray Film
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.