Bangalore District Court
Smt. Shilpa K vs Sri.Girigowda A.M on 6 February, 2023
KABC020103952019
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT BENGALURU.
DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023
(SCCH25)
Present: Miss.B.T.ANNAPOORNESHWARI
B.A., L.L.B., L.L.M.
XXI A.C.M.M. & XXIII A.S.C.J, Bengaluru.
MVC No.2269/2019
PETITIONER/S: 1.Smt. Shilpa K.
W/o Late Madhu A.M.
alias Madhukumar A.M.
alias Madhusudhan A.M.
Aged about 32 years,
2. Mast. Likith Gowda A.M.
S/o Late Madhu A.M.
alias Madhukumar A.M.
alias Madhusudhan A.M.
Aged about 12 years,
3. Mast.Sanjeev A.M.,
S/o Late Madhu A.M.
alias Madhukumar A.M.
alias Madhusudhan A.M.
Aged about 10 years,
2 MVC No.2269//2019
SCCH-25
4. Smt.Narayanamma
W/o Late Doddamuniyappa
alias Muniyappa G.,
Aged about 60 years,
Since petitioners No.2 and 3 are
minors R/by their mother natural
Guardian 1st petitioner herein.
All are residing at:
Agrahara Village,
Hungenahalli Post,
Malur Taluk,
Kolar District.
(By Sri.N.Manjunath, Advocate.)
V/S
RESPONDENT/S 1. Sri.Girigowda A.M.
S/o Muniyappa G.,
Major by age,
R/at: Agrahara Village,
Hungenahalli Post,
Malur Taluk,
Kolar District.
(Exparte)
2. M/s IFFCOTokiyo, General
Insurance Company Ltd.,
Customer Service Center,
Sri.Shanthi Towers 5th Floor,
3rd Main, NGEF Layout,
Kashturingar,
Bangalore - 560 043.
3 MVC No.2269//2019
SCCH-25
(Policy No.1VOISMP4)
(By Sri.K.Prakash,
Advocate.)
JUDGMENT
This is a Petition filed by the Petitioners under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act seeking Compensation of Rs.60,00,000/ for the Death of one Sri.Madhu A.M. alias Madhukumar A.M. alias Madhusudhan A.M. in a road traffic accident dated 08.12.2018.
2. The case of the Petitioners in brief is that, on 08.12.2018 the deceased Madhu A.M. alias Madhukumar A.M. alias Madhusudhan A.M. was going towards his village Agrahara from Lakshmisagara Village by traveling in Honda Activa scooter bearing Reg.No.KA08V8532 as a pillion rider, ridden by his friend one Manjunatha of his Village, on the way at about 7.30 pm when they reached near 4 MVC No.2269//2019 SCCH-25 Malleshwaranagara, on KolarMalur Road, Malur Taluk, Kolar district, the rider of the said motorcycle ridden it at high speed in a rash and negligent manner over the road humps, as a result the deceased lost balance and fell down form the said motorcycle on the road and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately he was taken to Primary Health Center, Vokkaleri, after first aid while he was being shifted to R.L.Jalappa hospital, Kolar, he succumbed to the said injuries on the way.
3. It is further case of the petitioners that, prior to the accident the deceased was hale and healthy, aged about 33 years, Agriculturist and earning more than Rs.25,000/ per month and in future he would have earned more than Rs.50,000/ per month. The petitioners were entirely depending upon the earnings of the deceased and now they have no any other source of income for their livelihood and put to lot of mental agony and untold misery due to untimely death of the 5 MVC No.2269//2019 SCCH-25 deceased. The Petitioner No.1 has lost her consort at her young age of 32 years and has to remain single throughout her life and the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 have lost love, affection, caring and guidance of their father at their very tender age. So far they have spent about Rs.50,000/ towards transportation of dead body and funeral obsequies. The Respondents being the RC Owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.
4. In response to the notice issued by this Tribunal, the Respondent No.2 has appeared and filed written statement. In spite of due service of summons the respondent No.1 did not appear and hence placed exparte.
5. The Respondent No.2 in the written statement denied the case of the petitioners as false, admitted issuance of policy to the insured vehicle but 6 MVC No.2269//2019 SCCH-25 their liability if any is subject to terms and conditions of the policy and submitted that there is no compliance of Sec.134(c) and 158(6) of MV Act. Further submitted that the insured vehicle was not at all involved in the alleged accident but it has been falsely implicated in the case. Hence prayed for dismissal of the petition against them.
6. On the above rival contentions of the parties, this court has framed the following issues:
1. Whether the Petitioners prove that, they are the legal heirs of the deceased Sri.Madhu @ Madhu Kumar A.M.?
2. Whether the petitioners prove that, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of the rider of the Honda Activa Scooter bearing Reg.No.KA08V 8532 as a result Sri.Madhu @ Madhu Kumar A.M. sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries?
3. Whether the Petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, what is the quantum? From whom?
4. What Order or Award?7 MVC No.2269//2019
SCCH-25
7. In order to prove their case, the Petitioners have examined Petitioner No.1 - Smt. Shilpa K. wife of the deceased as PW.1 and got marked 16 documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.16. On the other side, the 2 nd Respondent has examined Dr.Sharan - General Duty Medical Officer, PHC Vekkaleri, Kolar Taluk and Dist. - as RW.1 and produced 1 document as per Ex.R.1. Mr.Jagadeesh S.R. PI, Hebbagodi PS, Bangalore, is examined as RW.2 and also examined its official Mr.S.Narendran - Assistant Manager as RW.3 and not produced any documents through the said witness.
8. Heard arguments and perused the materials on record. The Learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent has filed written arguments and relied upon the following decisions:
1. 2006 ACJ 2771:New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Vs. G.N.Gopalagowda and Anr..8 MVC No.2269//2019
SCCH-25
2. ILR 2009 KAR 2921:Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Co.
3. ILR 2009 KAR 3562: Veerappa and Anr. Vs. Siddappa and Anr..
4. MFA 4897/2006: Sri.Sundaresh Vs. Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., and Anr..
5. CRTS/92/200607 (Circular):
6. MFA No.760/2012, DD 03.08.2022: The TATA AIG Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Mr.M.E.Muthanna and Anr..
9. My findings to the above issues are as follows: Issue No.1 : In the affirmative, Issue No.2 : In the negative, Issue No.3 : In the negative, Issue No.4 : As per final order for the Following:
REASONS
10. Issue Nos.1 and 2: It is the case of the Petitioners that, the Petitioner No.1 is the wife, Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the minor children and the petitioner No.4 is the mother of the 9MVC No.2269//2019 SCCH-25 deceased - Sri.Madhu A.M. alias Madhukumar A.M. alias Madhusudhan A.M.. In this regard, the Petitioners have examined wife of the deceased by name Smt.Shilpa K. as PW.1. The PW.1 has specifically deposed this relationship in her chiefexamination. Apart from that to prove the relationship, the Petitioners have also produced the notarized copies of Aadhar cards of themselves and the deceased as per Ex.P.12, Notarized copies of two voter IDs of petitioner Nos.1 and 4 and notarized copy of Ration card as per Exs.P.14 and P.15. There is no contrary to these documents from the respondent No.2. In the Aadhar Card of the deceased his father's name is mentioned as Muniyappa. In the Aadhar cards of the Petitioner Nos.2 and 3, their father's name is mentioned as Madhu Kumar A.M.. In the Ex.P.14 Voter ID card of the petitioner No.1 her husband's name is mentioned as Madhukumar and in the Voter ID card of the petitioner 10 MVC No.2269//2019 SCCH-25 No.4 her husband's name is mentioned as Doddamuniyappa. In the same manner in Ex.P.15 Ration card, the head of the family name is mentioned as Narayanamma who is the mother (petitioner No.4) of the deceased and also mentioned the names of the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 and deceased. Further, these documents are public documents and they have got initial presumptive value under law. These documents have not been seriously disputed by the Respondent No.2 and they have not produced any contrary documents to dispute and rebut the contents of documents produced by the Petitioners. As such, there are no reasons to discard the oral and documentary evidence produced by the Petitioners. Under such circumstances, relying upon the oral evidence of PW.1 and documents, this court is of the opinion that the Petitioner Nos.1 to 4 are the wife, children and mother of the deceased Sri.Madhu @ Madhu Kumar A.M.. 11 MVC No.2269//2019
SCCH-25
11. The Petitioners in order to prove that there was actionable negligence by the rider of Honda Activa Scooter bearing Reg.No.KA08V8532 have examined the Petitioner No.1 i.e., the wife of the deceased as PW.1 and produced 8 documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.8. The PW.1 has stated in her evidence that her deceased husband Madhu A.M. alias Madhukumar A.M. alias Madhusudhan A.M. was going towards their village Agrahara from Agricultural land at Lakshmisagara Village by traveling in a Honda Activa Scooter bearing Reg.No.KA08V8532 as a pillion rider, ridden by his friend one Manjunatha and on the way at about 7.30pm, when they reached near Malleshwaranagara, on KolarMalur road, Malur Taluk, Kolar District, the rider of the said motorcycle ridden it with high speed in a rash and negligent manner over a road humps and as a result her husband lost balance and fell down from 12 MVC No.2269//2019 SCCH-25 the said motorcycle in to the road and caused the accident. The respondent No.2 denied the case of the petitioners as false and contended that due to negligence of the deceased the alleged accident occurred. In the crossexamination of PW.1 it is elicited that the friend of the deceased namely Mr.Manjunath did inform her over phone with regard to the alleged accident, the said Active Honda is belonged to her brotherinlaw Girigowda, Mr.Manjunath shown the accident spot to her on 09.12.2018, the public shifted the deceased to Vakkaleri Hospital fpr treatment and at that time the deceased was unconscious and was not in talking condition, the deceased did not tell her about the manner of accident, as per Ex.P.3 the Active Honda did not sustain any damages, Mr.Manjunath did not sustain any injuries and the public informed to the doctors at Vakkaleri Hospital about the cause of injuries.
13 MVC No.2269//2019
SCCH-25
12. The respondent No.2 has got examined the Dr.Sharan - Medical Officer, PHC Vakkaleri, Kolar Taluk and Dist., as RW.1 and produced the Ex.R.1/notarized copy of OPD register extract (4 pages). The RW.1 has deposed that on 08.12.2018 at 8.30pm one patient namely Madhu was brought by his wife and as per her say patient was aged about 36 years, brought with history of RTA and on examination the patient was in semiconscious stage, nose was bleeding and hence referred to District hospital for higher treatment. The RW.1 further deposed that the patient Madhu was brought by his wife in their vehicle and as per the say of duty nurse there were no other injured person along with them and except Madhu no other injured person took treatment along with them and they did not do any MLC as it was a case of emergency and only given first aid.
14 MVC No.2269//2019
SCCH-25
13. Further the respondent No.2 has got examined the IO as RW.2. The RW.2 has deposed that he has not received any MLC intimation from Vakkaleri Govt. Hospital, the wife of the deceased lodged the first information, in Ex.P.1 at column No.12 the signature of one Mr.Ramesh is appearing, the accident spot was shown by the complainant/first informant, the deceased was taken to Vakkaleri Govt. Hospital by the accused Mr.Manjunath, at the time of Ex.P.6 the wife of the deceased was in the hospital, as per Ex.P.4 the accident spot is shown after 20 feet away from the road humps and it is elicited in the crossexamination by the counsel for petitioner that as the Mr.Ramesh did collect the Ex.P.1 and hence his signature is appearing on Ex.P.1.
14. The respondent No.2 has examined its official as RW.3 who has deposed mainly focusing that the deceased had suffered self accident by riding the 15 MVC No.2269//2019 SCCH-25 motorcycle on his own but later lodged false complaint which is after thought by twisting the facts and also reiterated the other defences taken out in their written statement. In the crossexamination of RW.3 it is elicited that the scooter did sustain damages to its front right side, the fact that the wife of the deceased did shift the deceased to the hospital and on this basis he is deposing that it was a self accident by the deceased himself.
15. The respondent No.2 mainly disputes that the deceased was a pillion rider and contends that the deceased while riding the scooter did sustain self fall which caused the accident. In this background the documentary evidence needs to be appreciated. The Ex.P2 is the first information lodged by the wife of the deceased stating that on 08.12.2018 at 7.45 p.m., Mr.Manjunath informed her that the deceased met with an accident and was being taken to Vakkaleri Hospital 16 MVC No.2269//2019 SCCH-25 and she immediately went to the said hospital and her husband was given first aid and on gathering information by her husband she came to know that while the deceased was coming as a pillion rider on Honda Activa ridden by Mr.Manjunath who rode it with rash and negligent manner near road humps at 7.30 p.m., due to which the deceased lost control and fell down and sustained head injury and further he stated that while shifting the deceased to Jalappa Hospital the deceased died on way. But as per the evidence of RW.1 the deceased was brought by his wife to the hospital and there were no other injured alongwith the patient and his wife which shows that the wife of the deceased only brought the deceased to the said hospital and not the public or the one Mr.Manjunath. If at all Mr.Manjunath was riding the scooter in rash and negligent manner and caused the accident as claimed then definitely Mr.Manjunath should have sustain any 17 MVC No.2269//2019 SCCH-25 injuries but admittedly Mr.Manjunath did not sustain any injuries contrary to the usual or natural happening of an accident in which the rider atleast sustains simple and grievous injuries. Further as per the evidence of RW.1 the deceased was semi conscious when brought to the hospital and due to his severe condition he was referred to District hospital, from this it is clearly that the condition of the deceased was serious and when this is considered it is crystal clear that the deceased was not in a condition of understanding or speaking then there was no possibility of explaining the manner of accident by the deceased to his wife as stated in Ex.P2/first information and hence it is clear that the facts have been twisted and fact of manner of accident is suppressed. On perusal of Ex.P3/spot mahazar there is a mention that the informant shown the accident spot and there is no averments that as to how the first informant came to know the exact place of 18MVC No.2269//2019 SCCH-25 accident spot and further in Ex.P3 it is clearly mentioned that the Honda Activa bearing No.KA08V 8532 did not have any damages. Admittedly the wife of the deceased is not an eyewitness but even then how she identified the spot of accident is material fact to be considered and appreciated, which points out that the Ex.P3 is a created document when admittedly the PW.1 was in the hospital at that time. The Ex.P4/spot sketch shows the accident spot is 20feet away from the road humps and there is no any mention as to from which direction the scooter was proceeding. If the rider did ride the vehicle in rash and negligent manner near the humps then definitely the accident spot should have been very near to the said road humps but it is not the case as per Ex.P4.
16. The Ex.P5/MVA report shows that the right side front shape of Honda Activa got damaged which is contrary to the Ex.P3 in which it is clearly mentioned 19 MVC No.2269//2019 SCCH-25 that Honda Active had no damages. The interesting point to be noted is that in Ex.P3 the colour of the Activa Honda mentioned as 'gray colour' but in Ex.P5/MVA report the colour of the Activa Honda mentioned as 'Brown colour' which is contrary in each other and further makes it clear and raises a doubt that the said vehicle was not at all inspected or the some other vehicle was inspected.
17. As per the contents of chargesheet it is mentioned that when the accused Mr.Manjunath ridden the motorcycle in rash and negligent manner in the humps at the time the deceased lost control and fell in the back side and sustained grievous head injury and immediately Mr.Manjunath shifted the deceased to the Vakkaleri Hospital. If this manner of accident is for a moment considered and appreciated then there should not have been any damages to the motorcycle but the Ex.P5 clearly shows the front right side shape got 20 MVC No.2269//2019 SCCH-25 damage which are contrary in nature and both documents contents do not tally. If the motorcycle got damaged to its front right side then definitely the rider could have got injuries which is not the case in this case. Moreover, the vehicle involved in the accident is a Honda Activa and as per the Ex.P7 the deceased is a male of 165cm in length i.e., almost 5.4 or 5.5 feet and even if the alleged manner of accident as narrated in Ex.P8/chargesheet is considered also there is no chance of any person with such a height could fall from the motorcycle that too from the back side of the said Activa Honda and from this also it can be clearly gathered that the alleged manner of accident is twisted to suit the case of the petitioners by suppressing the real fact.
18. The evidence of RW.1 and RW.2 are contrary in nature as the RW.1 clearly deposed that the patient/deceased was brought by his wife which is 21 MVC No.2269//2019 SCCH-25 denied by the RW.2 and hence the RW.1 evidence very much supports the defence and contention of the respondent No.2 that after getting self accident the deceased was brought by his wife and moreover the Ex.R1 being a first document and evidence of RW.1 who is an independent witness examined the deceased immediately when the deceased was brought to the hospital is needs to be appreciated in favour of the respondent No.2 has his evidence clearly supports the defence taken out by them and moreover the doctor will not depose anything on his own on his whims and fancies but will depose based on record. Moreover the contents of Ex.R2 to R5 are contrary in nature and they do not support the case of the petitioners with regard alleged manner of accident.
19. The Ex.P7/PM report under the head external examination the injuries noted on the deceased mentioned as; 1) Abrasion present over of right eye 22 MVC No.2269//2019 SCCH-25 brow measuring 4 cm x2 cm, bright red in colour, 2) Abrasion present over of right cheek measuring 3 cm x 3 cm, bright red in colour, 3) Abrasion present over chin measuring 5 cm x 3cm, bright red in colour, 4) Abrasion present over anterior aspect of right shoulder region measuring 2 cm x 2 cm, bright red in colour, 5) Abrasion present over outer aspect of left arm measuring 6cm x 6cm, bright red in colour, 6) Abrasion present over dorsum of right hand measuring 3cm x 2cm, bright red in colour, 7) Abrasion present over anterior aspect of right wrist measuring 2cm x 2cm, bright red in colour, 8) Abrasion present over anterior aspect of left wrist measuring 3cm x 3cm, bright red in colour, 9) Abrasion present over inner aspect of right foot measuring 18cm x 5 cm, bright red in colour, 10) Laceration present over inner aspect of right great toe measuring 5cm x 1.3 cm, muscle deep, 11) Abrasion present over outer aspect of right knee region 23 MVC No.2269//2019 SCCH-25 measuring 4 cm x 2 cm,, bright red in colour. If this injuries are appreciated alongwith the Ex.P5/MVA report wherein the right side front shape of the Activa Honda bearing No.KA08V8532 is got damage makes it clear that the deceased sustained injuries to his right side of the body due to self fall from the said Honda Activa and due to which also the said Honda Activa got damages to its right side but twisting the facts false first information is lodged colluding with the concerned. Therefore, on over all appreciating evidence on record it is crystal clear that the deceased was riding the vehicle and sustained self fall which lead to the accident as rightly pointed out and contended by the respondent No.2. The RW.2 even then as filed false chargesheet against one Mr.Manjunath for the best interest what he got in the case and hence his evidence is cannot be considered. The evidence of RW.3 fully supports the defence of the respondent No.2.
24 MVC No.2269//2019
SCCH-25
20. I have perused the first, second, fourth and sixth decisions relied upon by the counsel for respondent No.2 and of the opinion that the facts and circumstances of that case and this case are different and hence not applicable. On perusal of the third decision relied upon by the counsel for respondent No.2 at para 15 to 17 the Hon'ble HC clearly observed as to how the owners play fraud on the Insurance Company and the same is aptly applicable to this case which reads as under:
"15. Fraus et jus munquan cohabitant, Fraud and justice never dwell together, is a prestine maxim which has never lost its temper over all these centuries. Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or tempora. A judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the Courts is s nullity and non est in the eyes of law. Since fraud affects the solemnity, regularity and orderliness of the proceedings of the Court and also amounts to an abuse of the process of Court, the Courts have been held to have inherent power to set aside an order obtained by fraud practiced upon that Court. Similarly, where the Court is misled by a party or the Court itself commits a mistake which prejudices a party, the Court has the inherent power to recall its order.25 MVC No.2269//2019
SCCH-25
16. SubSection (2) of Section 149 provides the grounds on which the insurance company can avoid the liability to pay the compensation under the Act. One such ground is, if a policy is obtained by a representation of fact which was false in some material particular. Section 172 confers on the Claims Tribunal a power to award compensatory costs, if it is satisfied that the policy of insurance is void on the ground that it was obtained by representation of fact which was false in any material particular or any party or insured has put towards a false or vexatious claim or defence. Sub Section (3) of Section 172 also speaks of criminal liability in respect of such misrepresentation. However, it restricts the compensatory costs to be awarded to only Rs.1,000/. Therefore, the Act provides for taking action against a party who sets up a false or vexatious defence.
However, the cost of Rs.1,000/ prescribed under the aforesaid provision, has failed to act as a sufficient deterrent to the parties setting up false claim or defence. The experience has shown that this branch of law is slowly getting in to the hands of unscrupulous people who are making a mockery of judicial process. A disturbing trend of unholy alliance among the police, the doctors, the lawyer and some times even the Insurance Company, to siphon out the public money, and make an unlawful gain is fast emerging. It is also gaining respectability and persons who indulge in such 26 MVC No.2269//2019 SCCH-25 practices are acclaimed as most successful in their respective profession. This is a dangerous trend, if unchecked would undermine the judicial process. As the existing law is inadequate to check this malady, the Courts not only have to be careful in adjudicating such claims but also find ways to prevent such abuse. The have to balance the interest of these accident victims and their legal heirs on one side, by giving them just compensation at the earliest, thus giving effect to the mandate of the parliament, and on the other hand, to see that the very process is not abused and exploited by a handful of persons, who have attained specialization is this filed to make personal gains at the cost of the exchequer. An onerous responsibility lies on the Courts. Therefore, it is imperative that a strong message is to be sent to the abusers of the judicial process to discourage them from indulging in such practices as well as the consequences of such abuse may result in foisting the liability exclusively on the insuredowner of the vehicle.
17. In the instant case there is an attempt on the part of the 1 st respondent/owner to collude with the claims with the fond hope of saddling the insurance company to pay compensation. Though we fell sorry for the deceased and claimants, out sympathy should not offend the law. When the owner of the vehicle admitted the accident and had no objection for award of compensation, in order to see that in future such 27 MVC No.2269//2019 SCCH-25 admissions are not made, it is proper for us to direct the was involved in the accident, to pay compensation. It serves dual purpose. The claimants if they intend to recover compensation from the owner of the vehicle, this award would enable them to do so. It would also act as a sufficient deterrent to such owners who are planted in the case to foist liability on the Insurance company, if they are made to pay from their pockets. Therefore, we proceed to assess the compensation pay able by the insured only".
21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in many cases that the doctor would not mention any thing which is irrelevant in the medical documents and would not take signature on document which is incorrect and courts have to consider the contents mentioned therein. Therefore, this court has to consider the recitals of medical documents and evidence of RW.1. Admittedly, the information written in those documents have come into existence before the first information and other police documents came into existence and that too immediately after the accident or immediate admission of the injured/deceased. As their 28 MVC No.2269//2019 SCCH-25 contents (medical documents) got more evidentiary value than the police documents and this court is bound to consider those documents.
22. Further, I rely upon the decision in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Chamundeswari & Ors., wherein at para 8 the Hon'ble Apex court held that 'if any evidence before the Tribunal runs contrary to the contents in the FIR, the evidence which is recorded before the Tribunal has to be given weightage over the contents of the FIR.', same is aptly applicable to this case. The decision in Gourabai's case also aptly applicable to the present case wherein it is held that '...This conclusion overlooks from the fact that a doctor will not take a signature on a piece of paper mentioning something which is not correct...'. Further, in MFA.No:7279/2016 (MVI) C/W MFA.No:7110/2016 (MVI) between The Divisional Manager M/s. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. 29 MVC No.2269//2019 SCCH-25 Rayan Fernandes & Anr., wherein Hon'ble H.C. observed at para 11 that, ".... It is a trite proposition of law that the Tribunals are required to take a holistic view while assessing the police records relating to the registration of the crime in motor accident cases. But, however, when Insurance Company comes up with a definite case that there is a fraudulent claim, in such cases, the Tribunal is required to be cautious in accepting the police records. The Tribunal generally places reliance on the FIR, spot sketch and charge sheet in all cases where there is no serious dispute by the Insurance Company". At para 13 observed as, "......... Though we are not examining the correctness of the chargesheet, but his Court has to take judicial note of the conduct of the Investigating Officers who are investigating the road traffic accident cases. The chargesheet submitted cannot be accepted as a gospel truth in all the cases. In recent years, it has become rampant where investigating 30 MVC No.2269//2019 SCCH-25 Officers in connivance with the claimant and also the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident are distorting facts to suit their purpose and accordingly to enable them to claim compensation. It is well known that when a little brief authority frequently upsets the mental balance of the police officers, they are inclined to thing that they are not public servants but public masters. The Investigating officers with their powers are often overstepping their powers and are virtually assisting the claimants in falsely implicating vehicles, riders, drivers with malafide intent to saddle liability on the Insurance Company. The Investigating Officers have forgotten that their prime duty is not merely to bolster up the prosecution case with true facts but also to bring the real and unvarnished truth. But alas, very little of this principle is discernible these days in the police enquiries and investigations. This is what precisely happened in the present case on hand. There are two Investigating Officers, who have 31 MVC No.2269//2019 SCCH-25 investigated the case. We would not hesitate to hold that is is a deliberate ineffective investigation to enable the claimant to seek compensation. The guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex court in catena of judgments wherein the Tribunal are required to take holistic view of police records cannot be made applicable to fraudulent cases. In the case on hand, the reliance placed on police records has to be out rightly discarded in the light of clinching rebuttal evidence adduced by the Insurance Company." This decision is also aptly applicable to the present case as the I.O. without considering the medical records and without any basis and proper investigation has filed chargesheet.
23. Therefore, as per the discussions made above and appreciation of evidence on record this Tribunal is of the opinion that there is twisting of the alleged manner of accident false implication of the insured vehicle which is in affirmation of the defence of respondent 32 MVC No.2269//2019 SCCH-25 No.2/Insurance Company. Under these circumstances, this Tribunal is of the opinion that, the petitioner has failed to prove that the accident was due to the rash and negligence of the rider of offending vehicle as claimed by them. Accordingly issue No.1 is held in the affirmative and issue No.2 is held in the negative.
24. Issue No.3: While discussing the above issue, this Tribunal has already come to the conclusion that the Petitioners have failed to prove that, the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the alleged offending vehicle. Therefore, when the Petitioners have failed to the prove the very negligence of the rider of the offending vehicle, the question of awarding compensation and determining the quantum of compensation does not survive for consideration at all. Accordingly, Issue No.3 is held in the negative.
33 MVC No.2269//2019
SCCH-25
25. Issue No.4: For the reasons and discussions made above and finding to the above issues, this Tribunal proceeds to pass the following: ORDER The petition filed by the Petitioner U/Sec.166 of IMV Act is dismissed.
No order as to cost.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer on line, revised, corrected and then pronounced in the open court this the 6th day of February 2023) (Miss B.T.ANNAPOORNESHWARI) XXIII Addl. Small Causes Judge, Bangalore.
ANNEXTURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Petitioner: P.W.1 Smt. Shilpa K. 34 MVC No.2269//2019 SCCH-25 List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Respondents:
R.W.1 Dr.Sharan R.W.2 Mr.Jagadeesh S.R. R.W.3 Mr.S.Narendran
List of documents marked on behalf of the Petitioner:
Ex.P1 True copy of FIR Ex.P2 True copy of FIS Ex.P3 True copy of Panchanama Ex.P4 True copy of spot sketch Ex.P5 True copy of MVA report Ex.P6 True copy of Inquest report Ex.P7 True copy of PM report Ex.P8 True copy of charge sheet Ex.P9 RTC of Sy.No.117/2 Ex.P10 TC Ex.P11 Study Certificate Ex.P12 Notarized copies of Aadhar Cards of
deceased and petitioners (Compared with originals and originals are returned) Ex.P13 True copy of Voter list of 2017 35 MVC No.2269//2019 SCCH-25 Ex.P14 Notarized copies of two Voter IDs of petitioners 1 and 4 (Compared with originals and originals are returned) Ex.P15 Notarized copy of Ration Card (Compared with original and original returned) Ex.P16 RTC of Sy.No.44/P5 List of documents marked on behalf of the Respondent/s:
Ex.R.1 Notarized copy of OPD register extract (4 pages) (Compared with original register and original register is returned) (Miss B.T.ANNAPOORNESHWARI) XXIII Addl. Small Causes Judge, Bangalore.36 MVC No.2269//2019
SCCH-25 06.02.2023 For Judgment Pronounced vide separate judgment with following operative portion:
ORDER The petition filed by the Petitioner U/Sec.166 of IMV Act is dismissed.
No order as to cost.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Miss B.T.ANNAPOORNESHWARI) XXI A.C.M.M. & XXIII A.S.C.J. Bangalore.37 MVC No.2269//2019
SCCH-25 AWARD BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA & XXI ACMM : BANGALORE CITY MVC No.2269/2019 PETITIONER/S: 1.Smt. Shilpa K. W/o Late Madhu A.M. alias Madhukumar A.M. alias Madhusudhan A.M. Aged about 32 years,
2. Mast. Likith Gowda A.M. S/o Late Madhu A.M. alias Madhukumar A.M. alias Madhusudhan A.M. Aged about 12 years,
3. Mast. Sanjeev A.M., S/o Late Madhu A.M. alias Madhukumar A.M. alias Madhusudhan A.M. Aged about 10 years,
4. Smt.Narayanamma W/o Late Doddamuniyappa alias Muniyappa G., Aged about 60 years, Since petitioners No.2 and 3 are minors R/by their mother natural Guardian 1st petitioner herein.38 MVC No.2269//2019
SCCH-25 All are residing at:
Agrahara Village, Hungenahalli Post, Malur Taluk, Kolar District.
(By Sri.N.Manjunath, Advocate.) V/S RESPONDENT/S 1. Sri.Girigowda A.M. S/o Muniyappa G., Major by age, R/at: Agrahara Village, Hungenahalli Post, Malur Taluk, Kolar District.
(Exparte)
2. M/s IFFCOTokiyo, General Insurance Company Ltd., Customer Service Center, Sri.Shanthi Towers 5th Floor, 3rd Main, NGEF Layout, Kashturingar, Bangalore - 560 043.
(Policy No.1VOISMP4) (By Sri.K.Prakash, Advocate.) 39 MVC No.2269//2019 SCCH-25 WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the Petitioner/s above named U/sec.110A/166 of the M.V.C. Act, praying for the compensation of Rs. (Rupees On ly) for the injuries sustained by the Petitioner/Death of in a Motor Accident by Vehicle No. WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before Miss. B.T.Annapoorneshwari, XXIII Addl.Judge, Member, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for Petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. Advocate for Respondent.
ORDER The petition filed by the Petitioner U/Sec.166 of IMV Act is dismissed.
No order as to cost.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this 6th day of February 2023.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA BANGALORE.
40 MVC No.2269//2019
SCCH-25 By the __________________________________ Petitioner/s Respondent Court fee paid on petition 1000 Court fee paid on Powers 0000 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