Bangalore District Court
N.Krishnaraju @ Krishna vs Shobha on 22 February, 2022
KABC020087412018
BEFORE THE COURT OF XXIV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND
THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL & A.C.M.M. (SCCH26) AT
BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22nd FEBRUARY 2022
PRESENT: SRI.R.MAHESHA. B.A.L.LLB.,
XXIV ADDL. SCJ &
ACMM & MEMBER MACT
BENGALURU.
M.V.C No.1906/2018
PETITIONER : N.Krishnaraju @ Krishna
S/o Narayanappa
Aged about 32 years
Residing at No.2,
Snehalaya Church
Solur, Ramanagar district.
Pin562127
Also at
No.119, 1st main road,
3rd cross, Kamalanagar,
Bangalore560 079.
(By Sri.K.N.C.. Adv.,)
V/s
RESPONDENTS : 1. SHOBHA
W/O Laksmana Murthy
No.44, Addiganahalli,
Rajanukunte
Bangalore560 064
(RC owner of Maruti swift car bearing
reg.No.KA04MM7473)
(Sri.KGSAdvocate)
2.ICICI Lombard General insurance
co., Ltd., No.121, The Estate, 9th floor,
Dickenson road, M.G.road, Bangalore
560 001 (Policy
No.3001/139345428/00/B00 valid
from 21112017 to 20112018)
(Sri.KMR Advocate)
****
:: JUDGMENT::
The petition is filed by the petitioner under Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 seeking compensation for an amount of Rs.10,00,000/ for the grievous injuries sustained by him, in road traffic accident.
2. The brief facts of the case of the Petitioner is as follows:
That on 23122017 at about 7.30 p.m. when the petitioner was traveling in a passenger autorickshaw bearing reg.No.KA424632 on KunigalNelamangala NH 48 road slowly and cautiously by observing the traffic rules and regulations, at Yantaganahalli U turn, driver of the Maruti swift car bearing No.KA04MM7473 came from Kunigal towards Nelamangala in a rash and negligent manner, endangering to human life without observing any of the traffic rules and regulations and dashed against the autorickshaw, as a result of which petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately he was shifted to Nelamangala Govt., hospital wherein he took first aid treatment and referred to Snehalaya hospital, Solur PO, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagara district, wherein the petitioner took treatment as an inpatient from 2412 2017 to 26122017. That the petitioner spent more than Rs.1 lakh towards medical, conveyance, nourishment and other incidental charges etc., That on account of the said accidental injuries, petitioner is suffering from disability and prior to the date of accident, he was hale and healthy and was earning Rs.20,000/ by working as a driver, on account of the said accidental injuries, petitioner cannot attend to his work and lost his earnings. Hence petitioner prays to award compensation of rs.10 lakhs from the respondents.
3. After service of summons, the respondent No.1RC owner of the offending vehicle and respondent No.2insurer of the offending vehicle has appeared through its counsel and filed their respective written statement.
4. Respondent No.1 in her written statement stated that she was the owner of the Maruthi swift car bearing reg.No.KA04MM7473, on 245 2017 at about 12.03 a.m. one Mr.Manjunatha V who was driving the said Maruthi swift car from Vanigarahalli to Doddaballapur, at that point of time, near Galipooje village, due to heavy rain and wind, one Neem tree fallen on Maruthi swift car and immediately the driver drove the car towards the left and due to said act, the front portion of the car i.e., glass, bannet and engine was totally damaged and said damage was assessed to 80% by the new India assurance co., Ltd.,. That as on the date of accident car was insured with the New India assurance co., Ltd., and was valid from 25102016 till 24102017. That later the Maruthi swift car was left to BEIML showroom, whitefield for repair, later the same was also reported to the insurance company. That the estimation of cost by the service center was too high when compare to the insured declared value. That the 1st respondent made claim for total loss of the vehicle. That the insurance company informed the respondent No.1 first to cancel the RC for settlement of claim amount later the respondent No.1 informed the insurance company that the vehicle is hypothecated to Corporation Bank, Kundana, Bangalore rural and outstanding loan amount as on 23062017 was Rs.2,76,403/ and further informed that she was not having financial capacity to repay the loan amount to get NOC from the bank for canceling the RC. That the respondent No.1 requested the insurance company for settlement of claims with RC mode of total loss net of salvage and same was approved. That the New India Assurance company published paper ad in Deccan herald and Prajavani published on 772017 for selling the salvage vehicle with RC, later sealed quotations were received by the several buyers and Sri.Nadeem Ulla Shariff has been declared as highest tender amount. That the total claim of the respondent No.1 with the New India assurance co., Ltd., as per the insured declared value was Rs.3,79,221/ and Sri.Nadeem Ulla Shariff being the highest bidder has paid Rs.2,17,220/ to the respondent No.1 and remaining balance amount of Rs.1,62,001/ was paid by the new India assurance co., Ltd, to the respondent No.1 after deducting 10% of some clerical expenses which came to Rs.1,40,000/. That the respondent No.1 cleared the entire loan amount due to the corporation bank, Kundana, Bangalore rural and obtained NOC from the bank on 7112017 and handed over the same to Sri.Nadeem Ulla Shariff. That Sri.Nadeem Ulla Shariff being the highest bidder in the said auction, has become the owner of the Maruthi swift car bearing reg.No.KA04MM7473, as such the respondent No.1 not at all liable for any claim amount made in the above petition. Hence prays to dismiss the above petition with cost.
5. The respondent No.2 filed written statement wherein stated that this respondent has issued policy in respect of the swift car bearing No.KA 04MM7473, but the original copy of the policy is in the possession and control of the respondent No.1. That the driver of the insured vehicle has no valid and effective DL to drive the car at the time of accident. That as per section 134 (c) of MV Act 1988, it mandatory duty of the owner of the vehicle 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 DL, but th owner of the car has not complied with statutory demand. That the petitioner is not entitled to claim any interest on nonpecuniary damages as per the judgment reported in 1995 ACJ (1) page 366. That the accident in question was not occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the insured vehicle. That in the NIMHANS hospital records it was clearly mentioned that A/H/O RTA auto driver hit from behind by 4 wheeler. That there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the insured swift car. Hence prays to dismiss the petition.
6. On the basis of the above pleadings, this tribunal has framed the following:
:: ISSUES::
1. Whether Petitioner proves that, he has sustained injuries on account of the road traffic accident due to involvement of Maruthi Swift car bearing reg.No.KA04MM7473 near Yentaganahalli U turn, Kunigal to Nelamangala Nh 48 road, Bengaluru district on 23122017 at about 4.30 p.m. as alleged in the petition?
2. Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom ?
3. What order or award?
7. In order to prove the above said issues, Petitioner has been examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.20 documents. The respondent No.1 got examined herself as RW1 and got marked ExR1 to 11. One Anagha G.R.Legal Manager got examined as RW2.
8. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the Petitioner and respondent No.2. Despite providing sufficient time, the cousnel for respondent No.1 did not addressed his arguments.
9. My findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.2 : Partly in the affirmative
Issue No.3 : As per final order for the
following:
REASONS
Issue No.1:
10. In order to prove the actionable negligence, the petitioner himself entered into the witness box and filed his affidavit in lieu of examinationinchief and got examined as P.W.1. PW1 reiterates the averments and the allegations made in the claim petition and deposed that, the accident has occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the Maruthi swift car bearing reg.No.KA04MM7473 by its driver.
11. On perusal of ExP1, it disclose that one passenger of auto bearing No.KA424632 by name Lokesh S/o Venkatesh had lodged complaint/FIS stating that on 23122017 he came for his personal work in auto bearing No.KA424632 along with 4 to 5 passengers traveled in the said auto at that time, when auto reached Yentaganahalli 'U' turn at about 7.30 p.m. one car bearing No.KA04MM7473 driver came from Kunigal towards Nelamangala in a rash and negligent manner endangering to human life without observing traffic rules and dashed against passenger autorickshaw bearing No.KA424632. Due to which the said passenger auto rickshaw turtled, consequential petitioner and other inmates of said autorickshaw fell down and sustained injuries etc., Immediately injured were shifted through Lancotoll ambulance vehicle to Nelamangala Govt., hospital and they treated first aid, he gave his statement before medical officer and upon this witness statement case is registered agaisnt car driver bearing No.KA04MM7473 u/s 279, 337 of IPC in crime No.699/2017 in Nelamangala traffic police station at Nelamangala. IO had carried out investigation and proceeded spot of occurrence on 2412 2017 and he drew spot panchanama, the eye witness to the incident clearly stated that on 23122017at about 7.30 p.m. at the place of Yentaganahalli bus stand, one swift car driver hit to one passenger autorickshaw, spot sketch of incident not produced by petitioner. On perusal of ExP3 it indicates that the jurisdictional motor vehicle inspector inspected both vehicles auto bearing No.KA424632 and swift car bearing No.KA04MM7473 and clearly note down the damages to both vehicles and he clearly opined that " the cause of accident was not due to any mechanical defects of said vehicles" after through investigation by the investigation officer, he has filed charge sheet against driver of car bearing No.KA04MM7473 u/s 279, 337, 338 of IPC. On perusal of medical records and wound certificates, it indicates that the present petitioner and other inmates of autorickshaw got injuries due to RTA on 23122017 and the present petitioner and other inmates got injuries. On perusal of ExP3, the doctor clearly mentioned injuries caused to present petitioner grievous in nature and he took treatment conservatively in Snehalaya hospital, Solur, Magadi Tq., Ramnagara district. NIMHANS, Bangalroe and Adichunchanagiri hospital and research centre, BG nagar, Nagamangala Tq., Mandya district.
12. The petitioner is also relied upon various copies of police documents which are produced and got marked FIR, IMV report, statement of witnesses. The FIR discloses that, registered a case against driver of the car bearing No.KA04MM7473 U/s 279, 337 & 338 of IPC.
13. In the present case the accident is not disputed. The involvement of the vehicle in the accident is also not disputed. From the police documents, it is seen that, the jurisdictional police have registered the criminal case against the driver of the car bearing No.KA04MM7473. In this case, the respondent No.2 has stated that it has not issued the policy in respect of the swift car bearing reg.No.KA04MM7473, as on the date of accident, hence respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation.
14. Admittedly the petitioner has produced charge sheet, IMV report, statement of witness, OPD card, neurology report before the Tribunal to know the occurrence of accident and to evaluate the things. From charge sheet, police documents it clearly depicts that, the accident occurred and police have registered a case U/s 279, 337 and 338 of IPC.
15. Therefore on the basis of records available as stated, I came to conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the offending car bearing No.KA04MM7473. Thus, the contents of the police documents and oral evidence of PW.1 establishes the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the car bearing No.KA04MM7473. Under these circumstances, the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with charge sheet, IMV report, statement of witness establishes that the accident has caused solely due to rash and negligent driving of the car bearing No.KA 04MM7473 by its driver and petitioner sustained injuries in the said accident.
16. In addenda of this, in a claim for compensation U/S.166 of MV Act, 1988, the claimant is to prove the incident only on preponderance of probabilities and the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in 2011 SAR (Civil) 319 (Kusum and others Vs. Satbir and others).
17. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of evidence of PW1 coupled with contents of documents and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the petitioner has proved this issue by producing proper documents. Accordingly, I answer this issue in the affirmative.
ISSUE No.2:
18. Pain and suffering: It is stated in the petition as well as in the evidence that, immediately after the accident, petitioner was shifted to Government hospital, Nelamangala and he took first aid treatment and due to grievous injuries sustained by him, he was referred to Snehalaya hospital, Solur, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagara district wherein he took treatment as an inpatient from 24 122017 to 26122017 during the course of treatment, xrays were taken which revealed fracture of right clavicle lateral and fracture of right 12 th rib, severe injuries over lower abdomen, legs, head and other grievous injuries all over the body, after conservative treatment for further management referred to Adichunchanagiri hospital and Research centre, wherein he took treatment as an inpatient, CT scan of brain was done, which revealed small hemorrhagic confusion in the left parietal lobe, right high parietal lobe, after necessary treatment discharged with an advice for followup treatment, restricted fracture movement, not to involve in any strenuous activities and for complete bed rest, he took treatment at NIMHANS hospital and Sri.Lakshmi fracture and orthopaedic clinic and as per the advice of the doctors he is still continuing followup treatment, restricted fracture movements, not to involve in any strenuous activities and for complete bed rest, he also took treatment at NIMHANS hospital and Sri.Lakshmi fracture and orthopaedic clinic and as per the advice of the doctors, he is still continuing followup treatment. That on account of the said accidental injuries, he is completely bed ridden, getting headache and giddiness often, cannot walk, stand, getting breathing problem, cannot lift or carry weight, cannot ride or drive any vehicle and undergoing deep mental shock, pain and sufferings, since the injuries caused are permanent in nature. Thus taking into consideration of the gravity of the injuries sustained by the petitioner and treatment taken, I am of the opinion that, the petitioner has suffered pain due to the accidental injuries. Taking all these facts into consideration, I am of the opinion that, the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/ towards Pain and suffering.
19. Medical Expenses: It is the evidence of P.W.1 that, he spent Rs.1,00,000/ towards medical, conveyance, nourishment and other incidental charges etc., The petitioner has produced Ex11medical bills of Rs.4,778/ (12 bills). Taking into consideration of the nature of the injuries and the treatment as inpatient in the hospital and considering actual medical bills, I am of the opinion that, the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.4,778/ which is awarded towards Medical Expenses.
20. Food and nourishment, Conveyance and Attendant charges: It is stated in the petition as well as in the evidence that, immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Government hospital, Nelamangala and he took first aid treatment and due to grievous injuries sustained by him, he was referred to Snehalaya hospital, Solur, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagara district wherein he took treatment as an inpatient from 24 122017 to 26122017 during the course of treatment, xrays were taken which revealed fracture of right clavicle lateral and fracture of right 12 th rib, severe injuries over lower abdomen, legs, head and other grievous injuries all over the body, after conservative treatment for further management referred to Adichunchanagiri hospital and Research centre, wherein he took treatment as an inpatient, CT scan of brain was done, which revealed small hemorrhagic confusion in the left parietal lobe, right high parietal lobe, after necessary treatment discharged with an advice for followup treatment, restricted fracture movement, not to involve in any strenuous activities and for complete bed rest, he took treatment at NIMHANS hospital and Sri.Lakshmi fracture and orthopaedic clinic and as per the advice of the doctors he is still continuing followup treatment, restricted fracture movements, not to involve in any strenuous activities and for complete bed rest, he also took treatment at NIMHANS hospital and Sri.Lakshmi fracture and orthopaedic clinic and as per the advice of the doctors, he is still continuing followup treatment. That on account of the said accidental injuries, he is completely bed ridden, getting headache and giddiness often, cannot walk, stand, getting breathing problem, cannot lift or carry weight, cannot ride or drive any vehicle and undergoing deep mental shock, pain and sufferings, since the injuries caused are permanent in nature. The nature of injuries certainly made it inevitable to have an attendant and certainly requires to take some nutritious food and he must have spent money for conveyance during the treatment period. Hence, in the absence of material and having regard to all these facts and circumstances, the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/ towards Food, nourishment, Conveyance and Attendant charges.
21. Loss of income during the period of treatment: The case of the petitioner is that, at the time of accident he was working as driver and earning Rs.20,000/ per month and he is the only bread earning member in the family and his family depending upon his earnings, after the accident, he cannot do his job till today and lost his earning capacity and put to great financial hardship. The petitioner has not produced any document to prove his avocation and income. However by considering the nature of injuries, present day circumstances, accidental year 2017. As per the recent decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case between MFA 4893/2016(MV) Smt.Yashodamma Vs M.D., BMTC disposed on 16102020 (DB) held that in case no document produced by the petitioners to prove their avocation and income, in such a situation, court can refer or rely the guidelines issued by Karnataka State Legal Service Authority to assess notional income of deceased. Hence, as per the chart prepared by Karnataka State Legal Service Authority, dt.13 082020, the notional income of the petitioner is taken as Rs.11,000/. Therefore Notional Income of Rs.11,000/ p.m. has to be considered for calculating the compensation. petitioner's monthly income would be taken as Rs.11,000/. The petitioner might have taken rest for 3 months. Hence this tribunal granted compensation of Rs.33,000/ under the head Loss of income during the period of treatment.
22. Loss of Future earnings: The petitioner has stated that he was 35 years old as on the date of accident and working as driver and earning Rs.20,000/p.m.. The petitioner has not produced any document to prove his avocation and income. Further the petitioner has not examined the doctor who treated him to substantiate his contentions. The petitioenr clearly admtited durign course of cross examination that ನನನ ಚಲಕ ವವತತ ಬಟನ ಟ ಕಹಕಡರನತತಟನ. ಇದರಕದ ನನಗ ದನಕಕ 1000-1200 ಟ ಟಟ ಹಹಟಟಲ ಇಟನ ವರಗ ವವಪರವಗನತತದ. ಚಲಕ ವವತತಗಕತಲಹ ಟಟ ಹಹಟಟಲಲಕದ ಹಚನ ಚ ವವಪರವಗನತತದಕದರ ಸರ .
The petitioner himself admitted before this tribunal after this accident, he carried hotel business and earning more than income of earlier profession. So this accident did not affected his avocational income. Hence this tribunal is not granted any compensation under the head Loss of Future earnings.
23. Loss of Amenities of Life due to disability: The injuries sustained by the petitioner shows that he must have sustained pain and suffering. The accident has put him into a discomfort and he has lost the amenities of life to some extent. Taking all these facts into consideration, the petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.10,000/ towards Loss of Amenities of Life due to disability.
24. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that, the petitioner is entitled for the compensation under the following heads :
1 Pain and suffering. : Rs. 10,000=00 2 Medical Expenses : Rs. 4,778=00 3 Food, nourishment, : Rs. 10,000=00 Conveyance and Attendant charges.
4 Loss of income during the : Rs. 33,000=00 period of treatment.
5 Loss of amenities of life due : Rs. 10,000=00 to disability.
Total Rs. 67,778=00 The said total amount of Rs.67,778/ is rounded off to Rs.68,000/. So, the petitioner in this case is entitled for the compensation of Rs.68,000/.
25. As far as awarding of interest on the compensation amount is concerned, in a recent decision reported in 2018 ACJ 1300 between Mangla Ram V/s. Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., and others (in CA Nos.2499 of 2018 arising out of SLP(C) Nos.2814142 of 2017 decided on 06.04.2018) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the compensation amount, in para No.28 of the judgment held that, 'The appellant would also be entitled to interest on the total amount of compensation at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the compensation from the date of filing of the claim petition till date of realization" and also by following the principles laid down in (2018) ACJ 1020 in between ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co., Ltd., V/s. Ajay Kumar Mohanty and another decided on 6.3.2018 (in CA Nos.7181 of 2015 and 1879 of 2016) at para No.1 and 12 Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: "QuantumInterestTribunal allowed interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent which was reduced by High Court to 7 per centApex Court allowed interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim application". In view of the above judgments with regard to the rate of interest and also it is settled principles of law that, while awarding interest on the compensation amount, the Court has to take into account the rate of interest on the Nationalized Bank and the rate of interest at the rate of 9% p.a. cannot said to be on the higher side. Accordingly, the Petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of 9% p.a.
26. LIABILITY: The respondent No.1 took specific defence in this case that the occurrence and manner of accident as projected by petitioner is false and petitioner claimed amount in para 21 is highly exorbitant, ridiculous and not reasonable. The petitioner claimed false relief against this respondent. Further the respondent No.1 was the owner of swift car bearing reg.No.KA04MM7473 and on 2452017 at about 12.03 a.m. one Mr.Manjunatha V. who was driving the said Maruthi swift card was coming from vanigara halli to Doddaballapura, at that point of time, when he reached near Galipooje village, at about 12.03 a.m. due to heavy rain and wind, one Neem tree fallen on Maruthi swift car and immediately driver drove the car towards left and due to the said act, the front portion of the car i.e., glass bonnet and engine was totally damaged. The said damage was assessed to 80% by the new India assurance co., Ltd., no injury has been caused to driver. Further at para 10 of her written statement, the said maruthi swift car bearing reg.No.KA04MM7473 was insured with the new India assurance co., Ltd., the same was valid from 25102016 to till 24102017 vide policy bearing No.98000031160304535528. In para 11 and 12 of her written statement, the said Maruthi car left to BEIML show room, whitefield for repair, the estimation cost by the service centre was too high when compared to the insured declared value. The respondent No.1 made claim for total loss of vehicle. The insurance co., informed the respondent No.1, first cancel the RC for settlement of claim amount. The said vehicle hypothecated to corporation bank Kundana, Bangalore rural and the outstanding loan amount as on 2362017, was Rs.2,76,403/. Further respondent No.1 informed she was not having financial capacity to repay the loan amount to get NOC from the bank for canceling the RC. As such the respondent No.1 requested the insurance company for settlement of claims with RC mode of total loss net of salvage and same was approved. Thereafter the New India Assurance co., Ltd. published papers and in Deccan herald and Prajavani on 772014 for selling the salvage vehicle with RC. Later sealed quotations were received by the several buyers and Nadeem Ulla Sharif has been declared as highest tender amount. So as per above auction Nadeem Ulla Sharif was become owner of car bearing reg.No.KA04M 7473. The respondent No.1 is not the owner as on the date of accident i.e., on 23122017. To substantiate above written statement contention to prove before this tribunal, the respondent No.1 herself examined as RW1 and in support of her contention she produced ExR1 to ExR11. On perusal of exhibits placed by respondent No.1, it indicates that on 255 2017 as per ExR1, the Doddaballapura rural SHO issued acknowledgment for respondent No.1 car bearing No.KA04MM7473 get damaged due to over rain and wind. So as perExR2 to 4, the said car bearing No.KA04 MM7473 got damaged due to wind and heavy rain. ExR5 CD pertaining to ExR2 to 4. ExR6 policy certificate issued by New India Assurance company. So on careful scrutinizing contents of ExR6, the said Maruthi swift car insured with the New India Assurance company Ltd., and policy issued on 24102016 and valid till 24102017 mid night. On perusal of ExR7 to ExR10, the respondent No.1 claimed settlement for her vehicle damaged due to heavy rain and wind a sum of Rs.2,76,403/. But the said vehicle hypothecated to corporation bank, Kundana, Bangalore rural and insured does not have the financial capacity to repay the loan amount to get NOC from financier for canceling the RC. Therefore the administrative officer of insurance company write a letter to divisional claims committee for approval for going ahead with RC mode of NSL settlement. The same words are extracted here: " So I kindly request you to approve with RC mode of total loss net of salvage settlement as it satisfies the 2 nd condition of extraordinary six conditions mentioned in our HO circular. HO/MTD/OD 2015 CIR No.8/IBD; Admn;226 where mandatory RC cancellation can be waivered ". So as per ExR7 paper publication took as per ExR8 and 9 and ExR10 one customer Nadimulla Shariff quoted his offer for purchase of salvage KA04MM7473 swift diesel 2013 model with RC for a sum of Rs.2,17,220/ on 1172017. On 1872017, the new India assurance company Ltd., accepted offer made by Nadimulla Shariff as per ExR11. The main prayer of the respondent No.1 she was not a owner as on the date of accident to the swift car bearing No.KA04MM7473. Therefore she is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner.
27. The respondent No.2 company official deposed in her chief affidavit before this tribunal that the respondent No.2 is not insurer of the offending vehicle and had not issued any policy in respect of the offending vehicle car bearing No.KA04MM7473 as on the date of accident. There was no policy in existence in respect of above car. Therefore the respondent No.2 company is not liable to indemnify the first respondent. The respondent No.2 not produced any documents in support of her chief examination. So as per ExR6 the policy issued by the New India Assurance company Ltd., and it is valid from 24102016 to midnight 24102017. The present petition filed by petitioner against this respondent wrongly. When there is no existence of policy which is issued by respondent No.2 no question of arrayed as respondent No.2 does not arise. So it is clear the petitioner might wrongly made this respondent as respondent No.2.
28. In this background, this tribunal meticulously scrutinized both parties exhibits, it is forthcoming that admittedly there is no documents produced either parties to show that the offending vehicle stood in the name of Nadimulla Shariff as on the date of accident. It is pertinent to refer and mention the definition of owner as defined in motor vehicle Act. Therefore the same extracted for benefit of all or stakeholders.
Section 2(30) owner means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire purchase, agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement.
29. So as per Section 2(30)of IMV Act " person in whose name a motor vehicle is registered is the owner and exception to that principle are where such person is a minor or where the vehicle under a hire purchase agreement may treated as owner ". It is settled position of law by the Hon'ble Supreme court of India in case of Pushpa @ Leela Vs Shakuntala wherein Apex court held that when the sale of a vehicle, neither the transferer nor the transferee have taken the name of owner in the certificate of registration, the person in whose name stands must be deemed to continue as the owner of the vehicle for the purpose of whose name is reflected in the records of the registering authority, the owner within the meaning of section 2(30) of IMV Act for compensate. Further it is worthful to refer and relied recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme court of India in case between Naveen Kumar Vs Vijay Kumar and others wherein Apex court recently interpreted the expression owner. In section 2(30) of MV Act 1988, to be the person under whose name the motor vehicles stands registered. The Hon'ble Apex court further clarified that instances where the transfer of vehicle is not registered with an authority, the original owner will be liable. Further Hon'ble Apex court held that a claimant for compensation ought not be burdened with following a trial of successive transfer which are not registered with the registering authority to hold otherwise would be to defeat the salutary object and purpose of the Act.
30. So in the instant case, the respondent No.1 has not produced RC to show who is the owner of offending car as on the date of accident. She produced ExR7, it does not treated as RC as per meaning of Section 2(30) of IMV Act. The documents placed by respondent No.1 i.e., ExR1 to R11 mainly ExR11 was not a registration certificate issued by competent authority. The respondent No.1 herself produced ExR6 it indicates the respondent No.2 not issued any policy for offending vehicle, as already this tribunal discussed supra, ExR6 issued by the New India Assurance co., Ltd., for the car bearing No.KA04MM7473 and it is valid from 2410 2016 till 24102017. The alleged accident occurred as per police records i.e., on 23122017. So the petitioner made respondent No.2 unnecessary party to this proceedings. Therefore this tribunal came to conclusion that the respondent No.1 is the owner of Maruthi swift car bearing No.KA04 MM7473 as on the date of accident. Therefore owner is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. However, the respondent No.1 being the owner of alleged car is liable to pay compensation with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Accordingly, I answer the issue No.2 in the partly affirmative.
31. ISSUE NO.3: In view of above discussion on issue Nos.1 & 2, I proceed to pass the following;
: O R D E R : The claim petition filed by the petitioner U/S 166 of MV Act is hereby partly allowed with cost.
The claim petition as against the Respondent No.2 is hereby dismissed. The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.68,000/ with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The respondent No.1 is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner and it is directed to deposit the above compensation amount in this tribunal within two months from the date of this order.
Since the compensation amount is meager, entire amount shall be released in favour of the petitioner through Epayment directly to the petitioner's Account by obtaining bank account details on proper identification.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/.
Draw Award Accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, through online computer, thereof is corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22nd February 2022) (R.MAHESHA.) XXIV ADDL. SCJ & ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU.
::A N N E X U R E::
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: PW1 : N.Krishnaraju @ Krishna LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: Ex.P.1 FIR Ex.P.2 Complaint Ex.P.3 IMV report Ex.P.4 Wound certificate Ex.P.5 Mahazar Ex.P.6 Charge sheet Ex.P.7 Case summary Ex.P.8 Attested copy of adhar card Ex.P.9 Attested copy of DL Ex.P.10 & 11 NIMHANS CARD Ex.P. 12 Medical bills (12bills Rs.4778/) Ex.P.13 Xray film Ex.P.14 Xray report Ex.P.15 : Laxmi clinic report Ex.P.16 : CT scan Ex.P.17 : Altra sound Ex.P.18 : Emergency case record for head and Spine trauma Ex.P.19 : NIMHANS report ExP.20 : Referal form LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS: RW1 : Shobha RW2 : Anagha G.R. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS: Ex.R.1 True copy of the police acknowledgment Ex.R.2 to Ex.R.4 3 photos Ex.R.5 CD Ex.R.6 Original copy of the policy Ex.R.7 Letter dated 30062017 Ex.R.8 & Ex.R.9 Two paper publications Ex.R.10 Letter dated 11072017 Ex.R.11 Letter dated 18072017 (R.MAHESHA.) XXIV ADDL. SCJ & ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU.