Bangalore District Court
Sri Darshan C.M vs Sri Swamy M.N on 7 March, 2023
KABC020015222020
BEFORE THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, AT
BENGALURU
(SCCH-16)
Present: Sri. Sudeen Kumar D.J.,
B.A., LL.B.,
X Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes
& Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
MVC No.301/2020
Dated: 07th March 2023
Petitioner Sri Darshan C.M.,
S/o Madegowda C.K.,
Aged about 29 years,
R/at Chikachangavi Village,
Changavi Post,
Chandrashekarpura Hobli,
Gubbi Taluk, Tumakuru - 572 213.
(Sri Harish C.S., Advocate)
Vs.
Respondents 1. Sri Swamy M.N.,
Aged about 34 years,
Hettenahalli Village,
Gulur Hobli, Tumakuru.
(Driver of the vehicle)
(Exparte)
2. Sri P. Visweswar,
S/o Madhava Rao,
No.2520 Ground Floor,
26th Main, 14th Cross,
1st Sector, HSR Layout,
Bengaluru - 560 107.
(Owner of the vehicle
shown in RC)
(Exparte)
2 (SCCH-16) MVC 301/2020
3. Sri Pramod S.D.,
S/o Darmegowda,
Aged about 35 years,
1st Cross, K.M. Road,
Kalmaradi Mutt Gate,
Sakarayapatna, Matada Gate,
Chikkamangaluru - 577 135.
(Owner of the vehicle
shown in B-extract)
(Exparte)
4. The United India Insurance
Co. Ltd., Krishi Bhavan,
Floor No.5th & 6th, Hudson
Circle, Nrupathunga Road,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
(Policy
No.2414003119P102223452/1)
(Sri B.T. Mohan, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This petition is filed under Section 166 of M.V. Act, seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- from respondents on account of grievous injuries sustained by petitioner in Road Traffic Accident.
2. The brief facts of the petition are that, on 22- 06-2019 at about 8.30 p.m., petitioner was riding two- wheeler, bearing No.KA-06-EX-7287 along with his friend Kumarswamy, proceeding towards his native Chikachangavi, at about 9.15 p.m., when he was crossing his way near Lakappa Circle, Vidyodaya Law College, Kunigal road, at that time driver of Renault 3 (SCCH-16) MVC 301/2020 Duster car, bearing No.KA-53-MA-0808 driven the same rashly and negligently and hit the two-wheeler from behind. Due to the impact, petitioner and his friend fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, petitioner was shifted to District Government Hospital, wherein he took first aid treatment and left for home and on the next day he was admitted as an inpatient at M.C. Orthopaedic, Arthroscopy and Joint Replacement Center and took treatment. Earlier to the accident, he was working as Sales Officer of Muthoot Capital Services Ltd., at Shantinatha Honda Dealer and earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. But, due to the accidental injuries, he became permanently disabled and whereby lost his earning capacity. Therefore, petitioner prayed for compensation.
3. Respondent No.1 to 3 remained absent and therefore, they were placed exparte.
3(a). Respondent No.4 filed written statement of objections, admitted its insurance policy in respect of car, bearing No.KA-53-MB-0808 and its validity as on the date of accident, denied the other petition averments generally and contended that respondent No.3 failed to comply the provision under Section 134(C) and 158(6) of MV Act, the complaint had been lodged after lapse of 4 days, as per Motor Vehicle Inspection Report there was no damages to the 4 (SCCH-16) MVC 301/2020 offending car and the same was not at all involved in the alleged accident, it has been falsely implicated to make wrongful gain from it, the driver of offending car was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the same. Further, it sought for permission to contest even on behalf of respondent No.3 under Section 170 of the M.V. Act. For the above denials and contentions it prayed for dismissal of the petition.
4. Based on the pleadings the following issues came to be framed:
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he sustained grievous injuries due to the Road Traffic Accident alleged to have occurred on 22-06-2019 at about 8.30 p.m., due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of car, bearing registration No.KA-53-MA-0808?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what is the quantum and from whom?
3. What order or Award?
5. Petitioner got himself examined as PW1, examined PW2 and marked 18 documents. Respondent No.4 did not lead its evidence. Respondent No.1 to 3 are exparte.
6. Heard petitioner counsel. No arguments by respondent No.4. Perused the pleadings and evidences, on the basis, findings on the issues are as under:
5 (SCCH-16) MVC 301/2020 Issue No.1 : In the Negative Issue No.2 : In the Negative Issue No.3 : As per final order for the following REASONS ISSUE No.1:
7. Petitioner led his oral as well as documentary evidences. Respondent No.1 to 3 remained exparte. Respondent No.4 didn't lead its evidence. This is being a summary proceedings a sum and substance of pleadings and evidences are emphasized. The test for proof is preponderance of probability herein. The petition averments and objections are summarized herein above in the brief facts of case and objections and hence those are not repeated in avoidance of repetition. The negligence and involvement of vehicle are in dispute; the incident, injuries, and issuance of insurance policy and its validity are not in dispute.
8. Regarding the negligence and involvement of vehicle are concerned the petitioner relied on police records viz., True copy of FIR with Complaint, wound certificate, charge sheet, crime details form, seizure mahazar and photos, which are marked in Ex.P1 to Ex.5 and Ex.P14.
9. The charge sheet/final report filed by the Tumakuru Traffic Police, shows the negligence was on 6 (SCCH-16) MVC 301/2020 the part of the driver of Car, bearing No.KA-53-MA-0808 The brief facts of the final report read as follows:
" ದನನನಕ 22-06-2019 ರನದದ ರನತತ 10.00 ಗನಟಟ ಸಮಯದಲಲ ತದಮಕಕರದ ನಗರದ ಲಕಕಪಪ ವವತತದಲಲ ಹನದದಹಟಕಹಗರದವ ರನಷಷಷಹಯ ಹಟದನದರ- 206 ರ ರಸಟತಯಲಲ, ಈ ದಟಕಹಷನರಟಕಹಪಣ ಪತತದ ಅನಕಣ 12 ರಲಲ ನಮಕದಸರದವ ಆರಟಕಹಪಯದ KA-53-MA-0808 ನಟಹ ಕನರನ ಚನಲಕನನಗದದದ, ಸದರ ಕನರನದನ ಬಜಎಸಸವವತತದ ಕಡಟಯನದ ಗದಬಬ ಕಡಟಗಟ ರನಷಷಷಹಯ ಹಟದನದರ-206 ರ ರಸಟತಯಲಲ ಅತವಟಹಗ ಮತದತ ಅಜನಗರಕಕತಟಯನದ ಚನಲನಟ ಮನಡಕಟಕನಡದ ಹಟಕಹಗ, ಮದನಭನಗದಲಲ ಸನಕಕ-2 ರವರನದನ ಕಕರಸಕಟಕನಡದ ಸನಕಕ-1 ರವರದ ಚನಲನಟ ಮನಡಕಟಕನಡದ ಹಟಕಹಗದತತದದ KA-06-EX-7287 ನಟಹ ದದಚಕತ ವನಹನಕಟಕ ಡಕಕ ಹಟಕಡಟಸ ಅಪಘನತ ಪಡಸದ ಪರಣನಮ ಸನಕಕ-1 ಮತದತ ಸನಕಕ-2 ರವರದ ವನಹನ ಸಮಹತ ರಸಟತಯ ಮಹಲಟ ಬದನದಗ, ಸನಕಕ-1 ರವರಗಟ ಸನಮನನನ ಸದರಕಪದ ರಕತಗನಯಗಳದ ಮತದತ ತಹವತ ಸದರಕಪದ ರಕತಗನಯ ಉನಟನಗರದತತದಟ . ಅಪಘನತದ ನನತರ ಆರಟಕಹಪ ಚನಲಕನದ ಗನಯನಳದವನದನ ಚಕತಟತಗಟ ಸಟಹರಸದಟ, ಅಪಘನತದ ಬಗಟಗ ಪಲಹಸಸ ಠನಣಟಗಟ ಮನಹತ ನಹಡದಟಹ, ಅಪಘನತ ಪಡಸದ ವನಹನವನದನ ಸಸಳದಲಲ ನಲಲಸದಟಹ ತಟಗಟದದಕಟಕನಡದ ಹಟಕಹಗರದವವದನಗ ತನಖಟಯನದ ದವಡಪಟಷರದತಟತ".
10. The crime details form depicts the scene of occurrence. Motor Vehicles Inspection Report, which is with Ex.P5-seizure mahazar, shows there were no mechanical defects in the vehicles and no damages found on the offending car. Though the Motor Vehicles Inspection Report shows that the accident was not due to any mechanical defect, then it needs to be analyzed that whose negligence was there to the incident.
11. Respondent No.4 disputed the negligence involving the offending car. The Motor Vehicles 7 (SCCH-16) MVC 301/2020 Inspection Report shows no any damages on the offending car. In cross-examination of petitioner/PW1 it is elicited that "......ಡಕಕಯನದನಗ ಎರಡಕ ವನಹನ ಜಖನ ಆಗದತತವಟ ಎನದರಟ ಸರ..... ಎರಡಕ ವನಹನಗಳನದನ ಮಹಟನರದ ವನಹನ ನರಹಕಕಕರದ ತಪನಸಣಟ ಮನಡದನದರಟ. ನ.ಪ.5 ರ ಮಹಟನರದ ವನಹನ ತಪನಸಣನ ವರದಯಲಲ ಕನರದ ಜಖನ ಆದ ಬಗಟಗ ನಮಕದನಟ ಇಲಲ ಎನದರಟ ಸನಕಕಯದ ನನವವ ಬದದದದರನದ ಆ ರಹತ ಜಖನ ಆಗದಟಯಹ ಇಲಲವಟಹ ನನವವ ನಟಕಹಡಲಲಲ. ವನಹನ ತಪನಸಣನ ಸಮಯದಲಲ ನನನದ ಇರಲಲಲ". So that, if there was actual involvement of the offending car then there should at least be some damages even to the car. But, no even minimal damages in the offending car does doubt its involvement in the incident. The report is from the competent authority, which is considerable one. On the other hand, the report stands undisputed by the petitioner as the same is produced by the petitioner himself. The petitioner counsel submitted that the incident took place when the motorcycle stood in the signal to take deviation the offending car touched to the rear portion of the motorcycle and hence there was no severe damages and hence in the Motor Vehicles Inspection report no damages on the offending vehicle was noted. But, the damages pertaining to the motorcycle noted in the Motor Vehicles Inspection Report reveals the motorcycle damaged on its front left side clutch lever and left side crash guard, which falsifies the submission of the petitioner's counsel and the petitioner's version. It is averred and deposed that the offending car hit the motorcycle to its behind, but according to the Motor Vehicles Inspection Report the 8 (SCCH-16) MVC 301/2020 motorcycle damaged on its front portion is evident that the version of petitioner is false. Ex.P14-photographs of the offending car said to be taken in the hospital do not show those were taken in the hospital. But, on the other hand, the final report itself speaks that the driver of offending car did not take the injured to the hospital and the driver even came to be booked under Section 187 of the MV Act for such offence reveals the falsehood of involvement of the vehicle which falsifies the submission of the counsel for petitioner. Such being the things the involvement of the offending car is doubtful.
12. Further, it is averred that, "petitioner was riding the motorcycle and his friend was the pillion rider", in the chief examination affidavit it is stated that, "myself and rider of the bike who was travelling with me ....... ", in cross-examination of petitioner he admitted that, "ನನನದ ಹನಬದಯ ಸವನರ ಎನಬ ಬಗಟಗ ನನನ ಅಜರ ಮತದತ ಮದಖನ ವಚನರಣನ ಪತಮನಣ ಪತತದಲಲ ಹಟಹಳದಟದಹನಟ", in the final report the Investigation Officer opined that the petitioner was riding the motorcycle, the appropriate line is extracted here as follows for better appreciation that, "ಸನಕಕ2 ರವರನದನ ಕಕರಸಕಟಕನಡದ ಸನಕಕ1 ರವರದ ಚನಲನಟ ಮನಡಕಟಕನಡದ ಹಟಕಹಗದತತದದ KA-06- EX-7287 ನಟಹ ದದಚಕತ ವನಹನಕಟಕ ... .. ", Ex.P5 - vehicle seizure mahazar narrates the petitioner was the rider, the statement of eyewitness by name Kumaraswamy, who was the rider according to the petitioner, stated the petitioner himself was the rider and also the first 9 (SCCH-16) MVC 301/2020 information statement/complaint states the petitioner himself was the rider. These are nothing but show the petitioner did not approach the Tribunal with clean hands, but misrepresented, which could be deemed as fraud for monetary gain under compensation. But, as the truth finds its way, the petitioner himself revealed his falsehood. The first information statement/ complaint came to be filed/lodged after 4 days from the date of incident is significant to take note off as though the concerned police visited the Government Hospital and MC Clinic and took information, the first information statement/complaint came to be filed does mean nothing but the first information statement/complaint was after thought one as the police themselves could record the FIR based on the information, they received personally. Moreover, Ex.P15 - casualty report shows patient type as Non MLC is significant, which fortifies the falsehood of the petitioner.
13. Further, the petitioner counsel submitted that the driver of the offending car pleaded guilty before the learned criminal trial court needs to be considered. But, this tribunal needs to assess the materials available on the record independently of any finding of the criminal court, is pertinent to note here, consequently, the submission of the counsel is not accepted.
14. Such being the scenario, the facts and circumstance of the present case attracts the principle 10 (SCCH-16) MVC 301/2020 the fraud and justice never dwell together observed by hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Gulburga Bench, reported in ILR 2009 KAR 3562.
15. Wherefore, for foregoing reasons the negligence involving the offending car is not established, hence the petitioner is not entitled to the compensation from respondent No.2 to 4. So that, this issue is answered negatively.
ISSUE No.2:
16. In view of the discussions and the conclusion arrived at on issue No.1 the petitioner is not entitled to the compensation from respondents. Hence, this issue stands answered Negatively.
ISSUE No.3:
17. In view of the findings on issue No.1, the following order is passed:
ORDER The petition is dismissed.
No order as to cost.
Draw an award accordingly.
(Dictated to the typist directly on computer, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced in the open court this the 7th day of March 2023) (Sudeen Kumar D.J.) Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
11 (SCCH-16) MVC 301/2020 ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of petitioner:
PW1 Sri Darshan C.M. PW2 Dr. Nagaraj B.N.
Documents marked on behalf of petitioner:
Ex.P1 True copy of FIR with Complaint Ex.P2 True copy of Wound Certificate Ex.P3 True copy of Charge Sheet Ex.P4 True copy of Crime Details Form Ex.P5 True copy of Seizer Mahazar Ex.P6 Prescriptions (11 in nos.) Ex.P7 X-rays (6 in nos.) Ex.P8 ECG Report Ex.P9 Discharge Summary Ex.P10 Medical Bills (19 in nos.) Ex.P11 Notarized copy of Aadhar Card of Petitioner Ex.P12 Notarized copy of Driving Licence Ex.P13 Salary Certificates (10 in nos.) Ex.P14 Photos (5 in nos.) with C.D. along with certificate U/Sec. 65(B) of Indian Evidence Act Ex.P15 Casualty OPD Slip Ex.P16 Examination Report Ex.P17 One X-ray Ex.P18 Bank Statement Witnesses examined on behalf of respondents:
None Documents marked on behalf of the respondents:
Nil (Sudeen Kumar D.J.) Member, MACT, Bengaluru.