Bangalore District Court
Miss. Ankitha Mishra vs M.K.C. Gowda on 17 March, 2016
BEFORE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE CITY.SCCH-14
PRESENT: Basavaraj Chengti., B.Com.,LL.B.,(spl)
Member, MACT,
XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes,
BANGALORE.
MVC No.774/2014
Dated this the 17th day of March 2016
Petitioner/s : MISS. ANKITHA MISHRA
Aged about 20 years,
D/o B.N.Mishra
No.192/3, 7th Camp,
Air Force Station,
Jalahalli East,
Bengaluru-560 014.
(By pleader Sri ACN)
V/s
Respondent/s 1. M.K.C. GOWDA
Aged major
S/o Krishnappa
No.3, Madenur Post,
Shanthiramahobli,
Hassan District.
(Owner of the Tata Indica Car)
(By pleader Sri HNS)
2. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.,LTD.
Divisional Office, S.S.Complex,
Subhash Square,
Hassan-573201.
Rep., by its Divisional Manager,
(Insurer of the Tata Indica Car)
(By pleader Sri VK)
SCCH-14 2 MVC No.774/2014
3. NAVIND KUMAR
Aged about 49 years,
S/o Sita Prasad Singh
R/at No.608/5, 7th Camp
Air Force Station, Jalahalli East,
Bengaluru-560 014.
(Rider cum owner of the Bajaj Scooter)
(Exparte)
4. UNITED INDIA INS.,CO.LTD.,
Divisional Office, No.21,
St.Patrick's Church Building
Behind F.M Chariappa Building,
Museum road,
Bengaluru-560 025.
(Insurer of the Bajaj Scooter)
(By pleader Sri HGS)
5. K.S. RAVI KUMAR
S/o Shivaline Gowda
R/o Somasundara Playa,
Ragaavendrareddy Building,
Agara Post, Bangalore-560 034.
(Owner of the Tata Indica Car)
(Exparte)
XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes & MACT.,
BANGALORE.
SCCH-14 3 MVC No.774/2014
JUDGMENT
This petition is filed by the petitioner U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in a road traffic accident.
2. Brief averments of the petition are as under:
On 12.08.2011 at about 08-30 p.m., the petitioner was traveling on Scooter bearing No.DL-9-SC-9711 as a pillion rider on Jalahalli East main road. The respondent no.3 was riding the said scooter along with another pillion rider by name Nandita Kumari. When they reached near Double Tank BMTC bus stop, at that time, Car bearing No.KA-18-A-1723 driven by its driver with high speed, in rash and negligent manner came and dashed against the scooter. Due to impact, all the inmates of the scooter fell down along with scooter and sustained severe multiple injuries. Immediately, the petitioner was taken to IM Room East and after first aid, she was shifted to Command Hospital, Air Force for further treatment. Prior to the accident, the petitioner was hale and healthy, was aged 20 years, was pursuing 10th std., and was preparing for her final examination. Due to accidental injuries, she was unable to write continuously and she gets sever pain in her right hand. Yeshwantpur Traffic police have registered Cr.No.159/2011 against the driver of the Car bearing No.KA-18-A-1723 for the offences punishable U/s 279, 337 of IPC r/w 134 of MV Act. The respondent no.1 and 2 are the owner and insurer of Car bearing No.KA-18-A-1723 and the respondent no.3 and 4 are the rider cum owner and insurer of scooter No.DL-9-SC-SCCH-14 4 MVC No.774/2014
9711 and are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Hence, the petitioner has filed this petition for a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with Court cost and interest. The respondent no.5 came to be impleaded after filing of written statement by the respondent no.1 as owner of Car bearing No.KA-18-A-1723.
3. In pursuance of the notice, the respondent No.1, 2 and 4 have appeared before the Court through their respective counsel and filed objection statement separately. Inspite of service of notice, the respondent no.3 and 5 remained absent and hence, they are placed exparte. The respondent No.1 has contended that as on the date of accident, he was not the owner of the vehicle bearing No.KA-18-A- 1723, that he has sold the said vehicle in favour of one Ravikumar K.S on 16.05.2011, that the registering authority after such information given by him, gave N.O.C/CC on 17.05.2014 and transferred all the records pertaining to the said vehicle to R.T.O Bangalore, that thereafter, it was the duty of the purchaser Ravikumar to get the registration of the vehicle transferred in his name. He has denied the averments of the petition as false and frivolous. Hence, he has sought for dismissal of the petition with exemplary cost.
The respondent no.2 has denied the issuance of the policy in favour of the respondent no.1 in respect of car bearing No.KA-18-A- 1723 and also denied the other averments of the petition as false. He has contended that the petition is not maintainable either in law or on the facts, that compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive, exorbitant, fanciful and without any legal basis, that two SCCH-14 5 MVC No.774/2014 pillion riders were traveling on the scooter along with the rider by not following traffic rules and regulations, that due to overload on the scooter, all the inmates fell down and sustained injuries, that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the car, that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of the scooter, that the driver of the car and rider of the scooter were not holding valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident, that that the owner and concerned police have not complied with their mandatory duties. Hence, he has sought for dismissal of the petition as against him.
The respondent no.4 has admitted that the he has issued a liability policy to vehicle bearing No.DL-09-SC-9711 vide policy bearing No.072400/31/10/2/00007074. He has contended that the pillion rider does not cover the risk under liability policy, that he is not liable to pay any compensation, that chargesheet shows that there was no negligence on the part of the scooter, that rider of the scooter was not holding a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident, that the owner of the vehicle was not intimated about the alleged accident and he has violated the terms and conditions of the policy, that he is not liable to indemnify the respondent no.3, that the owner and concerned police have not complied with their mandatory duties, that the petitioner has not sustained any injuries in the alleged accident, that there is no negligence on the part of the rider of the scooter, that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive, exorbitant and without there being any rational nexus. Hence, he has sought for dismissal of the petition as against him.
SCCH-14 6 MVC No.774/20144. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues were framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that she sustained grievious injuries in the nature of permanent disablement on 12.08.2011 at about 08.30 p.m., on Jalahalli East Main Road, infront of Double Tank, BMTC Bus Stop, Bangalore, in an accident arising due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of TATA Indica Car bearing No.KA-18-A-1723?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
3. What Order or Award?
5. During the evidence, the petitioner has examined herself as PW.1 and got marked documents as Ex.P1 to P12. The respondent no.2 has examined his officer as RW.1 and got marked documents as Ex.R1 to 5. The respondent no.4 has examined his officer as RW.2 and got marked copy of policy as Ex.R6.
6. Heard the arguments. The counsel for the respondent no.2 has relied upon following rulings:
1. ILR 2011 KAR 2827: Vishwanath shetty Vs., Vincent Pinto & Anr.,
2. 2008 ACJ 1307: Sardari & Ors., Vs., Sushil Kumar & Ors.,
3. AIR 2008 SC 614: New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Vs., Prabhu Lal., I have gone through the said rulings and perused the records.SCCH-14 7 MVC No.774/2014
7. My findings on the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1: In Affirmative.
Issue No.2 : In Affirmative, For Rs.30,000/-
from the respondent No.1.
Issue No.3 : As per final order :
for the following:
REASONS
8. ISSUE NO.1: The facts admitted by the petitioner are that the she was travelling on Scooter bearing no.DL-9-SC-9711 as pillion rider, that the respondent no.3 was riding the scooter with another pillion rider by name Mrs. Nandita Kumari, that the scooter was ridden by its rider by violating traffic rules, that she was treated conservatively in Command hospital, Air Force, Bangalore after the accident, that she was in 12th std. at the time of accident, that she did not sustain fracture injury in the accident, that she continued her studies after the accident.
9. The respondent no.1 and 2 are the owner and insurer of Tata Indica Car bearing no.KA-18-A-1723. The respondent no.3 and 4 are the owner and insurer of Scooter bearing no.DL-9-SC-9711. The respondent no.5 is impleaded after filing of W.S. by the respondent no.1 who contended that he sold the vehicle to the respondent no.5 on 16.05.2011, but the vehicle was not got transferred. The respondent no.3 and 5 remained exparte. The respondent no.1 has not produced any evidence to prove his defence as to sale of car on 16.05.2011 to the respondent no.5. The respondent no.2 has examined his officer as RW-1 and got marked SCCH-14 8 MVC No.774/2014 Ex.R-1 to 6, whereas the respondent no.4 has examined his officer as RW-2 and got marked copy of policy as Ex.R-6.
10. The respondent no.2 has denied the issuance of policy in favour of the respondent no.1 in respect of Tata Indica car bearing no. KA-18-A-1723, but during evidence, he gave up the said defence and got marked copy of policy as Ex.R-5 which reveals that the respondent no.1 was the RC owner and insured of the said car on the date of accident. There is no evidence to believe that the respondent no.1 has sold the said car in favour of the respondent no.5. Hence, the defence of the respondent no.1 is liable to be rejected. The respondent no.4 has admitted the issuance of policy in favour of the respondent no.3, but he has contended that the policy was liability only policy and the risk of the pillion rider was not covered under the policy. Evidence of RW-2 and contents of Ex.R-6 establish the said fact.
11. The petitioner has asserted that the accident has occurred due to negligence of the driver of the car, whereas the respondent no.1 has no defence regarding manner of accident. The respondent no.2 has contended that the accident was due to negligence of the rider of the scooter who rode his vehicle with 2 pillion riders, lost control and caused accident. The respondent no.4 has contended that the accident has occurred due to sole negligence of the driver of the car and there was no negligence of the respondent no.3.
12. PW-1:Ankita Mishra, RW-1:Vasundhara Rastogi and RW-2: Chandrashekar have deposed about the manner of accident.
SCCH-14 9 MVC No.774/2014Their evidence is as per the pleadings of respective parties. Among them, PW-1 is the only eye witness and the other two witnesses have deposed on the basis of records. Hence, oral evidence of RW-1 and 2 as to manner of accident is inadmissible and unbelievable. PW-1 has stated that the accident has occurred due to negligence of the driver of the car. Except bare denials, nothing is elicited from her during cross examination. The said denials are not sufficient to prove the defence of the respondent no.2 that the accident has occurred due to sole or contributory negligence of the rider of scooter.
13. The counsel for the respondent no.2 has drawn my attention to the sketch and the admission of PW-1 and argued that there were 3 persons on the scooter, that it was overloaded, that it was night time and the scooter was ridden on the middle of the road, that in view of traffic violation, that there were no damages on the car, it can be held that the rider of the scooter was also negligent and contributed to the accident. But, copies of police records at Ex.P-1 to 5 reveal that Yeshwanthpur Traffic police have registered Cr.No.159/11, investigated the matter and filed charge sheet against the driver of the car for causing grievous injuries to the inmates of the scooter by his rash or negligent driving. There was no delay in lodging complaint. There is no evidence to disbelieve the contents of charge sheet. Though, the accident has occurred on the middle of the road and there were no damages on the car, they are not sufficient to hold that the rider of scooter was negligent and charge sheet is defective or collusive. The driver of the car was the best witness to speak about the accident, but he is not examined by the respondent SCCH-14 10 MVC No.774/2014 no.2. On the contrary, he has got marked copy of charge sheet, copy of order sheet in C.C.No.368/ 12, copy of plea as Ex.R-2 to 4. The contents of Ex.R-2 to 4 go against the defence of the respondent no.2 as to manner of accident and negligence of the driver of the car. Ex.R-3 and 4 disclose that the said driver has pleaded his guilt and paid fine before concerned magistrate for causing grievous injuries to inmates of scooter by driving the car in rash and negligent manner. Wound certificate at Ex.P-6 reveals that the petitioner sustained simple injuries in RTA. There was no delay in taking the petitioner to hospital. No doubtful circumstances are there regarding the history of injuries of the petitioner as mentioned in medical records. Hence, I am of the opinion that oral evidence of PW-1 and documentary evidence at Ex.P-1 to 6 disclose that the petitioner has sustained injuries in RTA arising due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tata Indica car bearing no. KA-18-A-1723. Evidence of RW-1 and contents Ex.R-1 to 5 are not sufficient to rebut the case of the petitioner. On the contrary, Ex.R-2 to 4 support the version of PW-1 as to negligence of the driver of the car for the occurrence of the accident. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner has succeeded to prove this issue and the respondent no.2 has failed to establish his defence. Evidence of RW-2 goes in favour of the petitioner as to manner of accident. Hence, I answer the issue in affirmative.
14. ISSUE NO.2: PW-1: Ankitha Mishra has deposed about the injuries caused to her in the accident, about treatment taken by her and about effect of such injuries. In cross examination, she has SCCH-14 11 MVC No.774/2014 admitted that no fracture injury was caused to her, that she was treated free of cost in Command hospital, that she continued her studies and she is in 3rd year B.E., that she has not taken follow up treatment. She has denied suggestions that she has no difficulties as stated in her affidavit, that she was not bed ridden for 3 months, that medical certificates and medical bills at Ex.P-11 12 are created.
15. Evidence of RW-1 and 2 and contents of Ex.R-1 to 6 are not helpful to decide the quantum of compensation payable to the petitioner. Their evidence is essential while fixing the liability of payment of compensation.
16. Evidence of PW-1 and contents of copy of wound certificate at Ex.P-6 disclose that the petitioner has sustained following injuries:
1. Abrasion of over right knee, right elbow with minor bruise on left foot,
2. Contusion over right shoulder and right hip She was treated conservatively in Command hospital as out patient. Radiological examination of the petitioner in Jindal Rural Charitable hospital shows normal study. Medical certificates reveal that the petitioner was advised to take rest for 20 days. She might not have attended her classes for 20 days and her parents might have spent amount for nourishment and conveyance during the said period. But, there is no medical evidence to believe that the petitioner is suffering from permanent disability and she has difficulties as stated in her affidavit. She might have suffered some difficulties after the accident for few days. She has produced medical bills amounting SCCH-14 12 MVC No.774/2014 to Rs.11,635/- which are marked as Ex.P-12. Among the said bills, physiotherapy bill for Rs.10,000/- is at Sl.No.5. It is the bill charged for 20 days. Same is dt. 1-2-2013. The accident has occurred on 12-8-2011. There was no advice by the doctors for getting physiotherapy after lapse of about 1½ year. Therefore, physiotherapy bill at Ex.P-12 is liable to be rejected. The amount of other bills is Rs.1635/- and said bills are believable. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.15,000/-
towards pain and sufferings, Rs.2,000/- towards medical bills, Rs.3,000/- towards nourishment and conveyance, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of amenities for temporary period and Rs.5,000/- towards inconvenience to the petitioner due to non attending of classes and to her parents due to accident. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for just and reasonable compensation as under:
1 Pain and sufferings Rs.15,000/- 2 Medical expenses Rs. 2,000/-
3 Nourishment and conveyance Rs. 3,000/- 4 Loss of amenities for temporary Rs. 5,000/-
period 5 Inconvenience to the petitioner Rs. 5,000/-
and her parents Total Rs.30,000/-
The petitioner is further entitled for interest @9% from the date of petition till the date of payment.
17. The respondent no.1 and 2 are the owner and insurer of Tata Indica car bearing no.KA-18-A-1723. The accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of said car. Hence, the respondent no.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay SCCH-14 13 MVC No.774/2014 compensation and interest to the petitioner. The respondent no.3 and 4 are the owner and insurer of Scooter bearing no.DL-09-SC- 9711. The respondent no.2 has failed to prove that the accident was due to negligence of the rider of said scooter. Hence, respondent no.3 and 4 are not liable to pay compensation as such the petition as against them is liable to be dismissed. The respondent no.5 is impleaded on the basis of the defence of the respondent no.1 that he was not the owner of the car on the date of accident and he sold it to the respondent no.5. But, the respondent no.1 has failed to prove his defence as to sale of his car to the respondent no.5. Ex.R-5 is the copy of policy issued in favour of the respondent no.1 and it goes against the pleading and defence of the respondent no.1. The policy was issued in the name of the respondent no.1. Hence, it can be held that the respondent no.1 was the RC owner of Tata Indica car bearing no.KA-18-A-1723 on the date of accident. Since, the respondent no.1 has failed to prove the status of the respondent no.5, the petitioner as against the respondent no.5 is liable to be dismissed.
18. The respondent no.2 has denied his liability to indemnify the respondent no.1 on the ground of violation of policy condition by him. RW-1:Vasumdjara Rastogi has deposed that the driver of the insured vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving license on the date of accident and hence, the respondent no.2 is not liable to indemnify the respondent no.1 and to compensate the petitioner. The respondent no.2 has got marked Ex.R-1 to 5 to corroborate the evidence of RW-1 which reveal that the driver of the car was charge sheeted by the police for not holding a valid and effective driving SCCH-14 14 MVC No.774/2014 licence on the date of accident, that the said driver has also pleaded his guilt for the offence punishable U/s 3(1) R/w Sec.181 of M.V. Act and paid fine before concerned criminal Court. His plea of guilt and order of conviction by the Court for the offence punishable U/s 181 of M.V.Act is sufficient to conclude that the driver of the car was not holding a valid and effective licence to drive the car on the date of accident.
19. The respondent no.2 has relied upon rulings in which it is held as under:
ILR 2011 KAR 2827:
"Motor Vehicles Act, 1988- Accident - Claim for compensation -Judgment and award- Tribunal fastening liability on the owner and absolving the liability as against the insurer-Appealed against-Driver not possessing valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle on the date of accident -Breach of terms and conditions of the policy by the owner- "Necessity for driving licence"- Discussed- HELD, A person driving any type of vehicle should possess valid licence to drive a particular vehicle with proper endorsement in his driving licence permitted him to drive the type of vehicle, whether it is transport vehicle or otherwise. FURTHER HELD, Admittedly, the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid driving licence to drive the transport vehicle as on the date of accident. In view of this, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the first respondent/owner has committed breach of terms and conditions of the policy and therefore the second respondent/ insurer is not liable to indemnify the first respondent/owner, SCCH-14 15 MVC No.774/2014 Accordingly, the Tribunal has absolved the liability of the insurer from payment of compensation and saddled the same on the first respondent/owner, -Impugned Judgment and Award is justified - MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988- SECTION 3-
NECESSITY OF DRIVING LICENCE-
DISCUSSED".
2008 ACJ 1307:
"Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, sections
149 (2) (a) (ii) and 5- Motor insurance- Driving licence- Liability of insurance company -Tractor hit a tonga and tonga driver sustained fatal injuries-Tractor driver admitted that he had no licence to drive a tractor-Concurrent finding of High Court held that claimants are entitled to compensation from driver and owner of vehicle Whether insurance company was rightly exempted from liability-Held:yes: owner of vehicle has a statutory obligation to see that driver of vehicle whom he authorised to driver holds a valid licence".
AIR 2008 SC 614:
"Motor Vehicles act (59 of 1988), Ss.147, 2(47),3- Liability of insurer Defence of validity of driver's licence- Vehicle involved in accident driven by driver holding LMV licence- No endorsement on licence to drive transport vehicle- Permit issued by Transport Authority clearly showing that vehicle in question was a transport vehicle'- Yet holding vehicle to be LMV on basis of unladen weight and fact that it was not carrying goods at relevant time- And saddling liability on insurance company- Improper".SCCH-14 16 MVC No.774/2014
The above rulings are applicable to this case. The respondent no.1 has violated the policy condition by allowing a person who was not holding a valid and effective driving license to drive his car on the date of accident. Hence, the respondent no.2 is absolved from indemnifying the respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 being the owner is alone liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Hence, I answer the issue as above.
20. ISSUE NO.3: In view of above discussion and findings, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.30,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondent no.1 is liable to pay to the petitioner a compensation of Rs.30,000/- with interest. He is directed to deposit the amount before court within one month from the date of order.
After deposit, entire amount with interest shall be released in favour of the petitioner through account payee cheque with proper identification.SCCH-14 17 MVC No.774/2014
Claim of the petition filed against the respondent no.2 to 5 is dismissed without cost.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer and then corrected by me and pronounced in the open court, on this the 17th day of March 2016.) (Basavaraj Chengti) XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & MACT, Bangalore.SCCH-14 18 MVC No.774/2014
ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS:
PW.1 Ankita Mishra
Respondent' s
RW.1 Vasundhara Rastogi
RW.2 Chandrashekar
Ex.P1 - Copy of FIR with complaint
Ex.P2 - Copy of Charge Sheet
Ex.P3 - Copy of Sketch
Ex.P4 - Copy of Panchanama
Ex.P5 - Copy of IMV report
Ex.P6 - Copy of Wound Certificate
Ex.P7 - X-ray Report
Ex.P8 - X-ray film
Ex.P9 - Medical Case Sheet (4 in nos)
Ex.P10 - Certificate of Dr. S. Chandra Shekar
Ex.P11 - Certificate of Dr. A .Savitri (2 in nos)
Ex.P12 - Medical bills (7 in nos amounting to Rs.11,635/-)
Respondent's
Ex.R1 - Authorization Letter
Ex.R2 - Copy of Charge sheet
Ex.R3 - Copy of order sheet in CC no. 368/12
Ex.R4 - Copy of plea
Ex.R5 - Copy of policy.
Ex.R6 - Copy of policy of the scooter
XVI ADDL.JUDGE,
Court o Small Causes & MACT,
Bangalore.
SCCH-14 19 MVC No.774/2014
Dt.17.03.2016
P-ACN
R1- HNS
R2-VK
R3 & 5- Exparte
R4-HGS
For Judgment
Order pronounced in open court
vide separate judgment.
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioner U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.30,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondent no.1 is liable to pay to the petitioner a compensation of Rs.30,000/- with interest. He is directed to deposit the amount before court within one month from the date of order.
After deposit, entire amount with interest shall be released in favour of the petitioner through account payee cheque with proper identification.SCCH-14 20 MVC No.774/2014
Claim of the petition filed against the respondent no.2 to 5 is dismissed without cost.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bangalore.SCCH-14 21 MVC No.774/2014
AWARD SCCH NO.14 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA : BANGALORE CITY MVC No.774/2014 Petitioner/s : MISS. ANKITHA MISHRA Aged about 20 years, D/o B.N.Mishra No.192/3, 7th Camp, Air Force Station, Jalahalli East, Bengaluru-560 014.
(By pleader Sri ACN) V/s Respondent/s 1. M.K.C. GOWDA Aged major S/o Krishnappa No.3, Madenur Post, Shanthiramahobli, Hassan District.
(Owner of the Tata Indica Car) (By pleader Sri HNS)
2. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.,LTD.
Divisional Office, S.S.Complex, Subhash Square, Hassan-573201.
Rep., by its Divisional Manager, (Insurer of the Tata Indica Car) (By pleader Sri VK)
3. NAVIND KUMAR Aged about 49 years, S/o Sita Prasad Singh R/at No.608/5, 7th Camp SCCH-14 22 MVC No.774/2014 Air Force Station, Jalahalli East, Bengaluru-560 014.
(Rider cum owner of the Bajaj Scooter) (Exparte)
4. UNITED INDIA INS.,CO.LTD., Divisional Office, No.21, St.Patrick's Church Building Behind F.M Chariappa Building, Museum road, Bengaluru-560 025.
(Insurer of the Bajaj Scooter) (By pleader Sri HGS)
5. K.S. RAVI KUMAR S/o Shivaline Gowda R/o Somasundara Playa, Ragaavendrareddy Building, Agara Post, Bangalore-560 034.
(Owner of the Tata Indica Car) (Exparte) WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the petitioner/s above named U/Sec.166 of the M.V.C. Act, praying for the compensation of Rs.
(Rupees ) for the
injuries sustained by the petitioner/Death of in a motor
Accident by vehicle No.
WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before
Sri/Smt.Basavaraj Chengti, XVI Addl.Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt. SCCH-14 23 MVC No.774/2014 Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. Advocate for respondent.
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.30,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondent no.1 is liable to pay to the petitioner a compensation of Rs.30,000/- with interest. He is directed to deposit the amount before court within one month from the date of order.
After deposit, entire amount with interest shall be released in favour of the petitioner through account payee cheque with proper identification.
Claim of the petition filed against the respondent no.2 to 5 is dismissed without cost.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day of 2016.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: Bangalore.
SCCH-14 24 MVC No.774/2014By 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. -----------------------------------
Decree Drafted Scrutinised by
MEMBER, M.A.C.T.
METROPOLITAN: BANGALORE.
Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR
SCCH-14 25 MVC No.774/2014
SCCH-14 26 MVC No.774/2014