Bangalore District Court
Sanjay Kumar G T vs Reliance Gen Ins Co Ltd on 25 April, 2025
KABC0B0002102024
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
& Vth ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE Court of Small
Causes, Mayo Hall Unit Bangalore (SCCH-20)
Present : Sri. P. Shivaraj,
B.Com. LL.B.
Vth Addl. Small Causes Judge,
& XXIV A.C.J.M.
Dated this the 25th day of April 2025
MVC No.695/2024
Petitioner: Sri.Sanjay Kumar G.T, 28 years
S/o Thimmaiah
Residing at Hosagabbadi Village,
Kaggalahalli post, Harohalli hobli,
Kanakapura Taluk,
Ramanagara -562112
And also at No.10, 5th Cross, MS Layout,
Jaraganahalli, JPNagar post,
Bangalore - 560078
(By Sri.BSD, Advocate)
VS
Respondents: 1. Reliance GIC Ltd.,
TP claims Hub, No.28, 5th Floor,
Centenary Building, East wing,
MG Road, Bangalore - 560001
(Policy No.110722123760001841
Valid up to 20.10.2021 to 19.10.2026)
2.Sri.Ambanna S/o Mareppa
R/at Karegudda Village, Manvi Taluk,
Raichur Dist-584101
(R1-Sri.SM, Advocate
R2-Exparte)
Vth Addl. Judge & XXIVth ACJM
SCCH-20, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore
2 MVC No.695/2024
JUDGMENT
Petitioner has filed this petition U/sec.166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, claiming the compensation amount of Rs.20,00,000/- with interest from the respondents.
2. Petitioner case is as Follows:
That on 15.01.2024 at about 7.15 PM., petitioner was driving vehicle beg. Reg. No.KA-05-LD-4519 wherein one Shivaraju was the pillion rider, they were moving towards Marasandra village, near Lakshmipur gate, the driver of vehicle beg. Reg. No.KA-36-EY-0860 drove it with high speed, rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner vehicle and caused the accident and thereby Petitioner sustained grievous injuries. He was shifted to Govt Hospital, Kaggalipura, wherein he took first aid and he was shifted to Aster RV hospital, Bangalore and again he was shifted to Chandramma Dayanand Sagar Hospital, wherein he took treatment as inpatient for the accidental injuries and he has spent Rs.2,00,000/- for his medical treatment.
3. Petitioner stated that he is 28 years of age working as a driver and was earning Rs.45,000/- per month, Further he stated that the accident has occurred due the negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle and the jurisdictional police have registered Cr.No.009/2024 against the driver of the offending vehicle. He alleged that the Respondent no.2 is the owner of the offending vehicle and insured his vehicle with 3 MVC No.695/2024 respondent no.1 and accident caused due to the sole negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and as such both are liable to pay the compensation with interest and he prayer this tribunal to award the compensation amount by allowing the petition.
4. After filing of the petition, notice served to the respondents, respondent no.1 appeared and filed the power and written statement by denying the petition averments and contended that insured has violated the policy conditions. Respondent no.2 has not choosen to contest the petition and he placed ex-party.
5. Petitioner examined himself as PW-1 and examined another two witness as PW.2 and PW3 and produced and marked 25 documents which are at Ex.P.1 to 25 and they are fully cross examined.
6. Respondent no.1 has chosen to lead the evidence, there is no material on record to show that the respondent No.1 is prevented from appearing before this tribunal to lead his evidence hence respondent no.1 evidence is taken as nil.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied on the following authorities:
1. N.Obalaranga Vs United India Insurance Co.ltd and others- 2010 ACJ 760
2. Rudra Vs National Insurance Co.Ltd., - (2011) 11 SCC 511 4 MVC No.695/2024
7. I have heard the arguments from both the counsels appearing for both the sides and perused the entire records.
8. On the basis of pleadings, I have framed the following :
ISSUES
1.Whether the petitioner proves that on 15.01.2024 at about 7.15 PM., petitioner was driving vehicle beg. Reg. No.KA-05-LD-4519 wherein one Shivaraju was the pillion rider, they were moving towards Marasandra village, near Lakshmipur gate, the driver of vehicle beg. Reg. No.KA-36-EY-
0860 drove it with high speed, rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner vehicle and caused the accident and thereby Petitioner sustained grievous injuries in the said accident as alleged in the petition?
2.Whether the respondent No.1 proves that insured has violated the policy conditions and accident occurred due to the negligent act of the petitioner as contended in the written statement?
3.Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation? if so, what is the quantum and from whom?
4.What order or award?
9. After carefully going through the evidence placed on record and taking into consideration of facts and attending circumstances of the case, my findings to the above issues are as follows;
Issue no.1: In the affirmative Issue no.2: In the Negative 5 MVC No.695/2024 Issue no.3: In partly affirmative Issue no.4: As per final order for the following:
REASONS
10. Issue No.1 to 3 :- I have taken these issues together for common discussion so as to avoid the repetition of facts and reasoning.
PW.1 being the petitioner, he reiterated the petition averments in his examination-in-chief affidavit. Petitioner has tender the police records, that is C/copy of FIR, complaint, mahazar, IMV report, wound certificate, Final report which are at Ex.P.1 to 6 and the reply notice is Ex.P.8.
11. On careful perusal of the aforesaid documents it is evident that Ambanna S/o Hanumantha was the driver of the offending vehicle. Ex.P8 is the reply given by the owner of the offending vehicle where in he admitted that the Ambanna S/o Hanumantha was the driver of the offending vehicle as on the date, time, place of the accident and he was having valid DL and the insurance policy of his vehicle is valid as on the date of the accident. Evidently respondent no.1 has failed to probabilise their contention as contended in the written statement that insured has violated the policy conditions.
12. The final report filed by the investigating officer which is at Ex.P6, where in the jurisdictional police have registered the case against the driver of the offending 6 MVC No.695/2024 vehicle involved in the accident, Ex.P3, 4 are the mahazar and IMV report. The aforesaid documents establishes the involvement of the aforesaid vehicle and its driver and his actionable negligent acts in the accident. The final report which is at Ex.P6 is filed after investigation and it is the prima facie proof of the accident and the involvement of the offending vehicle and rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle. Accordingly the police records cannot be doubted and disbelieved.
13. Petitioner has tender the wound certificate, discharge summaries which are at Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.12, the entry therein reveals that petitioner has sustained grievous injuries, and left hand radius fracture and ORIF with plating was done to him by way of surgery on 17.01.2024 and he was discharged on 23.01.2024 and he has taken treatment for the accidental injuries as an inpatient for 7 days. Accordingly petitioner is entitled for the compensation under the following heads.
14. Pecuniary damages (Medical expenses) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, Medicines, Transportation, Nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure:
15. Petitioner took treatment for the accidental injuries as an inpatient in Dayanand Sagar Hospital for 7 days and petitioner has sustained left hand radius fracture and ORIF with plating was done to him by way of surgery on 17.01.2024 and he had spent Rs.5,872/- as 7 MVC No.695/2024 per Ex.P.15. Evidently nothing is elicited from the mouth of PW.1 to disbelieve the fact that he has sustained the injuries in the alleged accident and he took treatment for the same. Inasmuch the wound certificate, OPD reports, discharge summary and the medical reports issued form the hospitals has to be accepted. Admittedly petitioner has taken treatment under went surgery and he was in patent for seven days in Dayanand Sagar Hospital, for attendant charges, transportation, nourishing food, he might have spend some more expenses. Therefore in addition to the actual medical expenses of Rs.5,872/-, I award Rs.10,000/-. In total petitioner is entitled for Rs.15,872/- compensation under this head.
Loss of income during laid up period.
16. The petitioner has not substantiated his nature of work and income as alleged in the petition. Accident took place on 15.01.2024, however as per notional income chart, the notional income for the year 2024 is Rs.16,500/-, and same is assessed and considered as his monthly income. Considering the accidental injuries and the treatment taken by the petitioner, I am of view that at-least one month he has lost his income. Therefore I award Rs.16,500/- X 1 month = Rs.16,500/- as compensation under this head.
Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
8 MVC No.695/202417. The petitioner has examined the doctor S.A.Somashekar as PW-3. He deposed that, petitioner has 16% of whole body disability. Learned advocate for the respondents argued that the assessment of PW-3 is on higher side. I have perused the evidence of PW-3 wound certificate, discharge summary given by both the hospitals, X-ray etc.
18. Evidently petitioner has not examined the doctors who have treated him in both the hospitals. It is true that petitioner sustained left hand radius fracture and ORIF with plating was done to him by way of surgery on 17.01.2024, further doctor has admitted that petitioner is able to perform his work with some effort and the fracture is united and petitioner need one more surgery for removal of implants and it cost may be around Rs.40,000/-. Ex.P.14 is the Driving license of the petitioner, wherein he is permitted to drive the private service vehicles including the bus. The percentage of loss of earning capacity due to accidental injuries is different from the percentage of physical disability due to accidental injuries. Considering the medical reports and oral testimony of doctor, and the nature of the work of the petitioner, the whole body disability of the petitioner is assessed as 13%.
19. The notional monthly income of the petitioner is assessed as Rs.16,500/-, the age of petitioner as on the date of accident is 29 years as per the entry in Aadhar 9 MVC No.695/2024 card which is at Ex P.13 . The multiplier applicable to this case is "17". Therefore loss of income on account of permanent disability is calculated as follows; Rs.16,500/-(Monthly income) X 12 (Months) X 17 ( Multiplier) X13% (Functional Disability) = Rs.4,37,580/- Hence, the petitioner is entitle for Rs.4,37,580/- as compensation under this head.
Non-Pecuniary damages (General damages) (IV)Damages for pain and sufferings and loss of amenities:
20. It is undisputed fact that petitioner has sustained grievous injury. During the hospitalization and rehabilitation period, he might have undergone lot of pain and sufferings and due to accidental injuries. There fore I award Rs.20,000/- under these conventional heads.
V) Loss of Amenities :-
21. The petitioner has to forego certain amenities available for him. Therefore I award Rs.20,000/- as compensation under this head. Admittedly another surgery is required for removal of the implants and no estimation cost of surgery tendered by the petitioner. Accordingly at least Rs.20,000/- is required for further surgery of the petitioner that is medical teaching hospital.
22. Except these heads the petitioner is not entitled for compensation under any other heads. In all the petitioner is entitled for compensation as follows:
10 MVC No.695/2024Sl Particulars Amount No. 1 Towards medical expenses, attendant Rs.15,872/-
charges, transportation, nourishing food 2 Loss of income during the laid up period Rs.16,500/- 3 Loss of income on account of Rs.4,37,580/-
permanent disability 4 pain & sufferings Rs. 20,000/-
5 loss of amenities Rs. 20,000/-
6 Cost of additional surgery Rs.20,000/-
TOTAL Rs.5,29,952/-
23. Rate of Interest: The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Sarala Verma and others V/s Delhi Transport corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, wherein it is held that it is just and proper to award interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Accordingly I award the interest at the rate of 6% P.A on the compensation amount form the date of filing of the petition till its realization.
24. Liability: The insurance company has not disputed the validity of the policy of the offending vehicle, on the other hand, respondent No.1 has failed to prove the contention as contended in his written statement. Accordingly Respondent No.1 is the liable to pay the compensation amount and respondent No.1 is directed to deposit compensation amount with interest before this Tribunal within one month from the date of this order. Hence with the aforesaid discussion based on the evidence placed on record, Accordingly I am answering 11 MVC No.695/2024 Issue No.1 the affirmative and issue No.2 in the negative and Issue No.3 in partly affirmative.
25. Issue No.4; For the foregoing reason and discussion, on point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner U/s.166 of Motor vehicle Act,1988, is partly allowed with cost.
Petitioner is entitled for the compensation amount of Rs.5,29,952/- with interest at the rate of 6% P.A from the date of filing of the petition till its realization.
Respondent no.1 is directed to deposit the compensation amount with interest before this tribunal with in 30 days from the date of the judgment.
After depositing the compensation amount with interest, office is directed to release the entire amount to the petitioner through K2, after compliance of mandate of circular No.39/2020 dated 17.01.2020.
Advocate fee of Rs.1000/- is fixed. All the interim applications pending if any stands disposed of.12 MVC No.695/2024
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer then corrected by me and pronounced in open court on this the 25th day of April 2025) (P. SHIVARAJ) Vth Addl. Judge & XXIVth ACJM SCCH-20, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore A N N E X U R E:
List of witnesses examined for Petitioners:
PW.1 : Sri.Sanjay Kumar.G.T PW.2 : Sri.K.M.Siddesh PW.3 : Dr.S.A.Somashekara
List of documents marked for Petitioners:
Ex.P1 : F.I.R,
Ex.P2 : Complaint
Ex.P3 : Mahazar,
Ex.P4 : IMV report
Ex.P5 : wound certificate
Ex.P6 : Final Report
Ex.P7 : Notice U/s 133 M.V.Act
Ex.P8 : reply to notice U/s 133 of M.V.Act
Ex.P9 : Medical report
Ex.P10-11: Out patient records 2 in nos
Ex.P12 : Discharge summary
Ex.P13 : Notarized copy of Adhaar card
Ex.P14 : Copy of DL
Ex.P15 : Medical bills 14 in nos
Ex.P16 : Prescriptions 5 in nos
Ex.P17 : Photos 2 in nos & CD
Ex.P18 : X-rays 3 in nos
Ex.P19 : Authorization Letter
Ex.P20 : MLC register Extract
Ex.P21 : Police Intimation
Ex.P22 : Inpatient file
Ex.P23 : X-rays 2 in nos
Ex.P24 : Out patient file
13 MVC No.695/2024
Ex.P25 : X-ray
List of Witnesses examined for Respondent: NIL List of Documents marked for Respondent: NIL (P. SHIVARAJ) Vth Addl. Judge & XXIVth ACJM SCCH-20, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore