Bangalore District Court
Sri Venkatesh Prasad vs Ravikumar G.S on 18 March, 2015
BEFORE THE COURT OF VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES
JUDGE AND THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
(SCCH-5) AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF MARCH 2015
PRESENT: K. RAJESH KARNAM, B.Sc, LLB.,
VIII ADDL. SCJ & XXXIII ACMM
MEMBER - MACT
BANGALORE
M.V.C No.1856 of 2012
PETITIONER: Sri Venkatesh Prasad
S/o.Siddappa
Aged about 28 years
R/at No.212
Hippe Anjaneya Layout
Puttaiahana Palya
Nelamangala Town
(By Sri V.Srinivas, Advocate)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS: 1. Ravikumar G.S
S/o.Shivaramaiah
Aged about 22 years
NES Ghandi Nagar
Channappa Badavane
Magadi Taluk
Ramanagar District
2 MVC.No.1856/2012
SCCH-5
3 MVC.No.1856/2012
SCCH-5
(Owner of vehicle bearing
No.KA-42-L-1843)
(Exparte)
2. Bajaj Allianz General
Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Ground Floor No.31
TBR Tower, 1st Cross
New Mission Road
Near Bangalore Stock Exchange
Bangalore - 560 027
(By Sri M.S.Basavaraju, Advocate)
****
JUDGMENT
This petition is filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-, for the bodily injuries sustained by petitioner in a road traffic accident.
2. The petition averments are:
On 05.02.2012 at about 12:45 a.m, after attending the marriage function in Srirama Palace of Magadi Town, petitioner was returning on motor cycle bearing No.KA-42-L-1843 as a pillion rider. At that time, due to rash & negligent riding of two wheeler by the brother-in-law of petitioner - Manjunath, accident 4 MVC.No.1856/2012 SCCH-5 occurred. Due to the accident, petitioner suffered grievous injuries and was first treated at Government Hospital, Magadi and then shifted to Nimhans. The petitioner was unable to take treatment in Nimhans and got admitted in Harasha Hospital, Magadi, where he took treatment as inpatient from 05.02.2012 to 13.02.2012. The petitioner pleads that he underwent surgery and spent about Rs.94,000/- for taking treatment. In all, he was obliged to spend about Rs.1,50,000/-. The petitioner pleads that jurisdictional police registered crime and accordingly he seeks the above relief.
3. On service of summons, the 1 st respondent/owner has preferred not to appear. Accordingly placed exparte. The 2 nd respondent/insurer has appeared through counsel and filed objections. In the objections, this respondent categorically denies the incident as pleaded by petitioner. This respondent contends that no any incident happened as pleaded, but on 05.12.2012 at about 12:30 a.m, while petitioner was riding the motor cycle, due to his rash & negligent riding, he has sustained injuries on his own 5 MVC.No.1856/2012 SCCH-5 and by twisting the facts and in collusion with the police, he got up a false crime registered and accordingly has come up with this petition. This respondent contends that, vehicle of Ravikumar having chasis No.11136 and engine No.01092 is duly insured with this respondent and the policy is valid from 29.10.2011 to 28.10.2012. This respondent contends that, subject to production of driving licence, FC and all relevant documents, this respondent will answer the claim as per the terms & conditions of the policy. This respondent further contends that rider had no valid driving licence. Accordingly as the terms & conditions of policy being violated, as per Sections 147 & 149 of Motor Vehicles Act this respondent may be absolved from any liability. This respondent pleads that as per Sections 134(c) & 158(6) of Motor Vehicles Act, neither the insured nor the Investigating Officer has informed this respondent about the incident, as such, this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. This respondent categorically denies the earnings of petitioner, petitioner taking treatment in Harasha Hospital, Magadi and Government Hospital, Magadi by spending substantial amount, are all false and the claim made is 6 MVC.No.1856/2012 SCCH-5 exorbitant. This respondent categorically denies that he is liable to pay any compensation as claimed and accordingly seeks dismissal of petition.
4. On the basis of these materials, the following issues have been framed :
1. Whether the petitioner proves that on 05.02.2012, at about 12:45 a.m, near Srirama Palace, Magadi Town, Road Traffic Accident took place due to the actionable negligence of the rider of motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-42-L-1843 by which the petitioner sustained injuries?
2. Whether the petitioner proves that petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what amount and from whom?
3. What order or award?
5. At trial, petitioner got examined himself as PW-1, Maxillofacial Surgeon as PW-2, Additional Professor of Neuropsychology as PW-3 and got exhibited P-1 to P-26. In response, 2nd respondent got examined Medical Record Keeper of 7 MVC.No.1856/2012 SCCH-5 M.S.Ramaiah Harsha Hospital as RW-1, Medical Officer in General Hospital, Magadi as RW-2, its Assistant Manager (Legal) as RW-3 and got exhibited R-1 to R-5.
6. On hearing both sides, case is reserved for judgment.
7. The above issues are answered as follows:
Issue No.1: Negative Issue No.2: Does not survive for consideration Issue No.3: As per final order for the following:
REASONS
8. Issue No.1: In proof of issue No.1, petitioner has specifically pleaded in the petition that on 05.02.2012 at about 12:45 a.m, after attending the marriage function in Srirama Palace of Magadi Town, he was returning on motor cycle bearing No.KA- 42-L-1843. At that time, due to rash & negligent riding of two wheeler by the brother-in-law of petitioner - Manjunath, accident occurred. Due to the accident, he suffered grievous injuries and was first treated at Government Hospital, Magadi and from there to Nimhans. Further, petitioner was unable to take treatment in Nimhans and got admitted in Harasha Hospital, Magadi, where he 8 MVC.No.1856/2012 SCCH-5 took treatment as inpatient from 05.02.2012 to 13.02.2012. The petitioner pleads that he underwent surgery and spent about Rs.94,000/- for taking treatment, in all he was obliged to spend about Rs.1,50,000/-. The petitioner pleads that jurisdictional police registered crime. Accordingly, he seeks the above relief. In response, 2nd respondent contends in the written statement that, no any accident happened as pleaded by petitioner, but the plea made by petitioner is false. He has twisted the facts and made a false claim. Further, the rider had no any valid driving licence, as such, this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. PW-1 in his affidavit evidence has reiterated the petition averments in page 1 para 3 and page 2 paras 4 to 9. He has placed reliance on Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-6 to prove the accident and injuries being suffered by him in a road traffic accident.
9. In his cross-examination on 24.03.3014 he deposed that G.Manjunath is his relative and he was alongwith him at the time of accident. He deposes that he has not sustained any injury. He deposes that they have given statement before doctor about 9 MVC.No.1856/2012 SCCH-5 the incident and Manjunath has also given statement, which is recorded. He denies the suggestion that he was riding the motor cycle and accident happened due to applying sudden brake by him. He denies that he was in inebriated condition and he was negligent in riding the motor cycle. He admits that he knows one Hemanth, who is his cousin brother. He denies that he was pillion rider alongwith him. He denies that Hemanth had also sustained injuries due to negligent riding by this petitioner. He pleads ignorance as to whether Hemanth had any difficulty to lodge the complaint on the next day itself. He denies that due to his negligence, accident had happened and therefore no complaint was lodged immediately. He denies the suggestion that Manjunath has given complaint in collusion with police on 22.02.2012. He denies that Manjunath was not at all present in the spot at the time of alleged incident. He admits that Ravikumar is also his relative. He admits that inpatient balance amount is shown as zero and he does not know about the advance bill and about the medical bills. He denies that he has included the incidental bills in the claim. He has specifically denied the entire 10 MVC.No.1856/2012 SCCH-5 incident as suggested by learned respondent counsel. PW-2 has produced documents of the hospital before this court. He has deposed in affidavit evidence about maintaining the documents. In his cross-examination, he admits in the hospital records what is mentioned in Ex.P-6 medical certificate and Ex.P-5 discharge summary are true & correct. He admits the injuries suffered by petitioner. This witness denies that he has not treated the petitioner and admits that MLC would be reported to the police station and the accident occurred at Honnapurakere near Magadi Road as per the police intimation. He admits that there will be no difficulty for the petitioner to do coolie work and walk as before. PW-3 - doctor has deposed with regard to disability suffered by petitioner due to head injury and she has opined that petitioner is having cognitive disability to an extent of 64.28%. In her cross- examination she denies the suggestion with regard to no any disability appearing on the petitioner.
10. RW-1 examined before this court has produced Ex.R-2 MLC extract. RW-2 has produced Ex.R-3 MLC 11 MVC.No.1856/2012 SCCH-5 maintained in General Hospital, Magadi. In the evidence of RW- 3, he reiterates the objection statement that accident did not happen as pleaded by petitioner, but the place of incident itself is contradictory with that of police records. This witness categorically denies the suggestion made by learned petitioner counsel. On going through the materials on record i.e., complaint, charge sheet & IMV report, it discloses that incident had happened near Srirama Palace in Magadi Town. In the case on hand, as per the documents summoned by respondent, Ex.R-2 MLC extract discloses history of alcohol and road traffic accident, resulting in head injury to petitioner. Ex.R-3 specifically discloses that petitioner has suffered injuries and he was unconscious while brought to the hospital and his brother Hemanth, who was also injured, discloses that petitioner was riding two wheeler near the Honnapura Kere and he was on the two wheeler along with Hemanth. On going through all these documents, the contentions raised by learned 2nd respondent counsel seems reasonable. Moreover, learned respondent counsel has relied on the citations, reported and unreported, which are as follows: 12 MVC.No.1856/2012
SCCH-5
1. Civil Appeal No.3171/2009 in case of North West Karnataka RD. Transport Corp., V/s Gourabia & others
2. 2009 ACJ 293 in case of Gurappa V/s Goudappagouda & another
3. MFA No.234/2010 (MV) in case of K.Sheshappa Gowda V/s Lathish & another
4. MFA No.794/2009 (MV) in case of M/s.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s Nagamma & others
5. ILR 2009 KAR 3562 in case of Veerappa & another V/s Siddappa & another
6. ILR 2009 KAR 2921 in case of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s B.C.Kumar & another
7. ILR 2003 KAR 409 in case of P.Varalakshmi Reddy & others V/s the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation
8. 2009 AIR SCW 4916 in case of Ningamma & another V/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
9. 2009 AIR SCW 1372 in case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., V/s Sadanand Mukhi & others 13 MVC.No.1856/2012 SCCH-5 On going through all these citations and the facts disclosed from police record, actually contradicts with Ex.R-3 MLC extract.
Ex.R-2 discloses that petitioner was in inebriated condition. Under these circumstances, the facts pleaded by petitioner with regard to incident, contradicts with the actual fact of accident happened. Further, petitioner has been made a pillion rider though another person Hemanth was also injured. The police in the charge sheet left that person being an eye witness. Therefore the contentions raised by learned respondent counsel by relying on the above citations, seems reasonable. Under these circumstances, petitioner has failed to prove the incident as pleaded is my firm view. Accordingly, I am obliged to answer issue No.1 in the negative.
11. Issue No.2: On the basis of discussions made on issue No.1, issue No.2 does not survive for consideration.
11. Issue No.3: In view of issue Nos.1 & 2, the petition is to be dismissed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: 14 MVC.No.1856/2012
SCCH-5 ORDER Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcript thereof is corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 18 th day of March 2015) (K. RAJESH KARNAM) VIII ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER RESPONDENTS PW-1: Venkatesh Prasad RW-1: Manjunatha.G PW-2: Shiva Shankar RW-2: Dr.Savitha K.R PW-3: Dr.Jamuna Rajeshwaran RW-3: B.R.Shilpa LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS RW-1: Manjunatha.G RW-2: Dr.Savitha K.R RW-3: B.R.Shilpa LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:15 MVC.No.1856/2012
SCCH-5 Ex.P-1 FIR with compliant Ex.P-2 Charge sheet Ex.P-3 Seizure Mahazar Ex.P-4 Motor vehicle accident report Ex.P-5 Discharge summary Ex.P-6 Medical certificate Ex.P-7 CT scan Ex.P-8 Lab report Ex.P-9 Medical prescriptions Ex.P-10 Medical bills Ex.P-11 CC of order sheet in CC No.598/12 Ex.P-12 Wound certificate Ex.P-13 Case sheet Ex.P-14 & CT scans report Ex.P-15 Ex.P-16 Discharge summary Ex.P-17 To X-ray films Ex.P-25 Ex.P-26 Neuropsychological assessment report 16 MVC.No.1856/2012 SCCH-5 LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:
Ex.R-1 Authorisation letter
Ex.R-2 MLC register extract
Ex.R-3 Attested copy of MLC register extract
Ex.R-4 Policy office copy
Ex.R-5 Postal receipt and acknowledgement
(K. RAJESH KARNAM)
VIII ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE,
MEMBER, MACT.