Bangalore District Court
In The Petition. The Petitioner Is Put To ... vs No on 21 July, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL. SMALL CAUSES AND
ADDL. MACT., BANGALORE, (SCCH-7)
Dated this, the 21st day of July, 2015.
PRESENT : SMT.INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR,
B.Com., LL.B.(Spl.),L.L.M.,
IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM,
Court of Small Causes,
Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
M.V.C.No.1928/2014
Sri. P. Krishnaiah, .... PETITIONER
S/o Sri. Puttaswamygowda,
Aged about 56 years,
Occ: Sr. Supervisor at Bangalore Club,
R/at No.3/36, 24th Main,
2nd Cross, 2nd Sector,
HSR Layout,
Bangalore - 560 102.
(By Sri. Suresh. M. Latur, Adv.,)
V/s
1. Sri. Prabagar Martin, ...RESPONDENTS
S/o Sri. Peter Swamynathan,
F 7. 15/3, CM Prakash BLDG,
Bande Road,
Devarachikkanahalli,
B.G. Road,
Bangalore - 560 076.
(Owner of Nano Car bearing Registration
No.KA-51-ME-7662)
2. The Manager,
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
No.28/5, Sentonary Blag,
East Wing, M.G. Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2 M.V.C.NO.1928/2014
(SCCH-7)
(Policy No.9901932311010005)
(Valid from 14.12.2013 to 13.12.2014)
(R1- By Sri. G. Sukumaran, Adv.,)
(R2- By Sri. Ravi. S. Samprathi, Adv.,)
JUDGMENT
The Petitioner has filed the present petition as against the Respondents No.1 and 2 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 praying to award compensation of Rupees 10,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment, with costs.
2. The brief averments of the Petitioner's case are as follows;
a) That, on 19.12.2013 at about 6.30 p.m., he was traveling on a Bicycle on Langford Road, near Nanjappa Circle. At that time, a Car bearing Registration No.KA-51-ME- 7662 came from behind with high speed in very rash and negligent manner and dashed against him. Due to which, he sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, he was taken to Sparsha Hospital, Bangalore. He is still under treatment. So far, he has spent about Rupees 10,000/- towards his medical and conveyance expenses.
b) Looking to the nature of injuries, he apprehends that, he will get the permanent disability and he will be disabled to do his occupation and earn his livelihood. Apart from loss of earnings, he will have to suffer from constant 3 M.V.C.NO.1928/2014 (SCCH-7) pain and discomforts throughout his life. Hence, his life has become miserable and dark due to this accident.
c) The accident in question is solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the motor vehicle involved in the accident. Therefore, the Respondents being the owner and insurer of the said vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to him. Hence, this Petition.
3. In response to the notice, the Respondent No.1 has appeared before this Tribunal through his Learned Counsel. But, inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the Respondent No.1 has not filed the written statement.
4. Initially, though the notice was duly served on the Respondent No.2, he was remained absent and hence, he was placed as exparte on 26.07.2014. Later, the Respondent No.2 has appeared before this Tribunal through his Learned Counsel and as per the Order dated 22.08.2014 passed on I.A.No.I, the exparte Order is set-aside and the Respondent No.2 is taken on file. But, initially, inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the Respondent No.2 had not filed the written statement. Later, as per the Order dated 09.12.2014 passed on I.A.No.II, the written statement filed by the Respondent No.2 is taken on file.
5. The Respondent No.2 inter-alia denying the entire case of the Petitioner, has further contended as follows;
4 M.V.C.NO.1928/2014(SCCH-7)
a) The petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts.
b) He seeks protection under Section 147 and 149 of M.V. Act, 1988.
c) As per Section 134(c) of M.V. Act, 1988, it is mandatory duty of the insured/Respondent No.l to furnish the particulars of policy, date, time and place of accident, particulars of the injured and the name of the driver and particulars of driving licence. But, the insured/Respondent No.1 has not complied with statutory demand. Hence, he is not liable to pay any compensation and the case is liable to be dismissed against him for non-compliance of the statutory demand.
d) As per Section 158 (6) of M.V. Act, 1988, it is mandatory duty of the concerned Police Station to forward all the relevant documents to the concerned insurer within 30 days from the date of the information, but, the Ashoknagar Police Station have failed to forward the documents and not complied with the statutory demand.
e) The driver of Car was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. The Respondent No.1 has handed over the possession of the vehicle to the driver, who did not held valid and effective driving licence and therefore, has contravened the proviso of M.V. Act and the rules framed there under and have committed the breach of the terms and conditions of the 5 M.V.C.NO.1928/2014 (SCCH-7) policy intentionally and willfully. Hence, he is not liable to indemnify the insured first Respondent.
f) It has issued a policy of insurance in favour of Respondent No.1 in respect of Car bearing Registration No.KA-51-ME-7662 and the liability of his Company, if any, is only towards its insured and is limited to the terms and conditions of the policy and subject to valid and effective driving licence of the driver in question.
g) As per Condition No.1 of Policy, the insured/first Respondent has to intimate the accident immediately on its occurrence to insurer and produce the required documents and to co-operate with the insurer in defending the claim effectively. In this case, the insurer has not reported the accident nor submitted the required documents and not co-operating with the insurer and violated Condition No.1 of the policy, which is a condition precedent to liability. As such, the policy has become null and void and the contract of insurance entered between the insurers and insured cannot be enforceable.
h) The accident did not take place due to the negligence on the part of the driver of Car as stated by the Petitioner in the petition. The Petitioner is put to strict proof either rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of Car.
i) The accident in question did take place due to the negligence on the part of the Petitioner alone was riding high speed Bicycle at the time of accident, who while riding his 6 M.V.C.NO.1928/2014 (SCCH-7) bicycle without having proper look out of the traffic rode the same in a rash and negligent manner and without observing vehicular traffic along the road suddenly came to the middle of the road and caused the accident. As such, the accident did take place due to the negligence on the part of the Petitioner alone. Hence, the petition requires to be rejected for want of negligence on the part of the driver of Car.
j) The Petitioner has not sustained injuries that are mentioned in the petition. The Petitioner has exaggerated the injuries to get more compensation and as such, it cannot be believed.
k) He seeks permission of this Hon'ble Court to contest the matter on all the grounds available to the insured under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, if the owner/alleged insured fail to contest the claim in collusion with the Petitioners.
l) The amount of compensation claimed Rupees 10,00,000/- is highly excessive, exaggerated, arbitrary and speculative when compared to comparable cases, which have been disposed off.
m) The Petitioner may be directed to confirm that, no other petition is filed before this MACT or before any other MACT, on the same cause of action. The Petitioner may be directed to give an undertaking to this Hon'ble Court that, no such petition is filed on the same cause of action, except this petition.
7 M.V.C.NO.1928/2014(SCCH-7)
n) Without prejudice, if this Hon'ble Court were to award compensation, the rate of interest may be restricted to 4% p.a. only. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.
6. Based on the above said pleadings, I have framed the following Issues;
ISSUES
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Car bearing Registration No.KA-51-ME-
7662 by its driver and in the said accident, he sustained injuries?
2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
3. What Order?
7. In order to prove his case, the Petitioner himself has been examined as P.W.1 by filing the affidavit as his examination-in-chief and has placed reliance upon Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10. On the other hand, the Respondents No.2 has examined the Superintendent in RTO Office, Electronic City, Bangalore, as R.W.1 and its Deputy Manager as R.W.2 and has placed reliance upon Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.3.
8. Heard the arguments.
8 M.V.C.NO.1928/2014(SCCH-7)
9. My answers to the above said Issues are as follows;
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative,
The Petitioner is
entitled for
compensation of Rupees
50,000/- with interest at
the rate of 6% p.a. from
the date of the petition
till the date of payment,
from the Respondent
No.1.
Issue No.3 : As per the final Order,
for the following;
REASONS
10. ISSUE NO.1 :- The P.W.1, who is the Petitioner
has stated in his examination-in-chief that, on 19.12.2013 at about 6.30 p.m., he was traveling on a Bicycle on Langford Road, near Nanjappa Circle and at that time, a Car bearing Registration No.KA-51-ME-7662 came from behind with high speed in very rash and negligent manner and dashed against him and due to which, he sustained fracture of left fibula lateral malleolus and injury to left knee and other grievous injuries all over the body. He has further stated that, immediately after the accident, the owner of the Car was admitted him to Sparsh Hospital, Bangalore and during the period, his left leg was plastered by white cement and treated conservatively and discharged with advice of follow-up treatment. He has further stated that, the accident occurred 9 M.V.C.NO.1928/2014 (SCCH-7) solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the Nano Car bearing Registration No.KA-51-ME-7662 and the Ashok Nagar Traffic Police have registered a Criminal case as against the driver in Crime No.13/2014 under Section 279 and 337 of IPC.
11. To corroborate his oral version, the Petitioner has produced Ex.P.1 FIR, Ex.P.2 Complaint, Ex.P.3 Statement of Sri. Balan, Ex.P.4 Charge Sheet, Ex.P.5 Spot Panchanama, Ex.P.6 Spot Sketch, Ex.P.7 MVI Report and Ex.P.8 Wound Certificate.
12. No doubt, on perusal of the contents of Ex.P.1 FIR and Ex.P.2 Complaint it appears that, the Petitioner himself has lodged Ex.P.2 Complaint as against the Respondent No.1, who was a registered Owner-cum-driver of the offending un numbered Car before the Ashoka Nagar Traffic Police on 30.01.2014 at 6.35 p.m., though the accident was taken place on 19.12.2013 at 6.30 p.m., which disclosed that, there is 42 days delay in lodging Ex.P.2 Complaint by the Petitioner as against the Respondent No.1. But, only based on the said reason for delay in lodging Ex.P.2 Complaint by the Petitioner as against the Respondent No.1, the entire case made out by the Petitioner cannot be thrown away, as, it is clearly alleged by the Petitioner in Ex.P.2 Complaint itself that, due to high speed, rash and negligent manner of driving of the said Nano Car by the Respondent No.1 himself, the road traffic accident was taken place on 19.12.2013 at 6.30 p.m., when he was proceeding on his Cycle near Nanjappa Circle, Langford Road, the said Nano Car dashed to his Cycle on its behind and due 10 M.V.C.NO.1928/2014 (SCCH-7) to which, he fell down from the Cycle and had sustained injuries on his left leg and the Respondent No.1, who was a driver of the offending Car shifted him to Sparsh Hospital for first aid treatment through the said Car itself and after treatment, he left him to his house and he has given phone number for further treatment and till this day, though he has called the Respondent No.1, he has not received his calls and as such, he has filed the complaint by causing delay. From this, it appears that, the reason for delay in lodging Ex.P.2 Complaint by him is clearly explained by the Petitioner in the Ex.P.2 Complaint itself. Furthermore, the P.W.1 in his cross- examination has clearly denied the suggestion put to him by the Respondent No.2 that, the Car was not occurred any accident to him and the complainant has not assured to him that, he will paid the medical expenses and only with an intention to get compensation, he has lodged a false complaint. Furthermore, the contents of the above said Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.8 clearly disclosed that, the offending Nano Car bearing Registration No.KA-51-ME-7662 as well as its driver, i.e., Respondent No.1, who is also owner of the said offending Car are very much involved in the said road traffic accident, which was taken place on 19.12.2013 at 6.30 p.m., wherein, the Petitioner had sustained one grievous injury, which is clear from the following discussion. More so, the P.W.1 in his cross-examination has clearly stated that, at the time of accident, nobody was accompanied with him and the Respondent No.1, who caused the accident was shifted him to Sparsha Hospital and the Doctor had not asked him about how he sustained injuries. He has further stated that, when 11 M.V.C.NO.1928/2014 (SCCH-7) he was at home, he lodged the complaint to the Police and one the same day itself, he was discharged from the Hospital and the Police have not enquired with him, when he was in the Hospital and in the house.
13. It is clear from the contents of Ex.P.1 FIR and Ex.P.2 Complaint that, based on Ex.P.2 Complaint, the Ashok Nagar Traffic Police have registered a criminal case as against the Respondent No.1 for the offenced punishable under Section 279 and 337 of IPC and Section 187 and Section 134(b) of IMV Act, under Crime No.13/2014.
14. The contents of Ex.P.3 Statement of Sri. Balan, Ex.P.5 Spot Panchanama, Ex.P.6 Spot Sketch and Ex.P.7 MVI Report further clearly disclosed about the very involvement of the offending Nano Car bearing Registration No.KA-51-ME- 7662 as well as its driver, i.e., the Respondent No.1, who is also a registered owner of the offending Car, in the said road traffic accident, which was occurred on 19.12.2013 at 6.30 p.m., wherein, the Petitioner had sustained one grievous injury as well as the treatment taken by the Petitioner at Sparsha Hospital on the same day itself. It is also clearly mentioned in Ex.P.7 MVI Report that, LHS of front bumper abbesses and dented, which is relating to the offending Car. It is also clearly mentioned in Ex.P.7 MVI Report that, the said accident was not occurred due to any mechanical defects of the said offending Car. On perusal of the contents of Ex.P.6 Spot Sketch, it is made crystal clear that, the said road traffic accident was taken place on the extreme left side of the road. From this, it is clear that, there was no negligence on the part 12 M.V.C.NO.1928/2014 (SCCH-7) of the Petitioner in the road traffic accident, but, the entire negligence is on the part of the Respondent No.1 in driving of the offending Car.
15. The contents of Ex.P.8 Wound Certificate clearly disclosed that, with a history of road traffic accident, the Petitioner was admitted on 19.12.2013 itself in Sparsha Hospital to take treatment to the accidental injuries and on examination, it is found that, in the said road traffic accident, he had sustained un-displaced fracture left mallellous, which is grievous in nature. From this, it is made crystal clear that, in the said road traffic accident, the Petitioner had sustained one grievous injury and on the same day itself, he took treatment to the accidental injury at Sparsha Hospital.
16. The contents of Ex.P.4 Charge Sheet further clearly disclosed that, since during the course of investigation, it is found that, due to high speed, rash and negligent manner of driving of the driver of the offending Nano Car bearing Registration No.KA-51-ME-7662 by its driver, i.e., Respondent No.1, the road traffic accident was taken place on 19.12.2013 at about 6.00 p.m., from Nanjappa Circle to CMP Gate Junction and dashed to the Cycle, on its behind, wherein, the Petitioner was proceeding and due to the said impact, the Petitioner had sustained grievous injury and the Respondent No.1 has not informed about the accident to the nearest Police Station and as such, after thorough investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed a charge sheet as against the Respondent No.1 for the offences punishable 13 M.V.C.NO.1928/2014 (SCCH-7) under Section 279 and 338 of IPC and Section 134(b) R/w Section 187 of M.V. Act.
17. The very involvement of the offending Nano Car bearing Registration No.KA-51-ME-7662 as well as its driver, i.e., Respondent No.1 in the said road traffic accident, wherein, the Petitioner had sustained one grievous injury are very much clear from the above said material evidence, both oral and documentary adduced by the Petitioner. To deny or discard the same, nothing is available on record on behalf of the Respondents.
18. Under the above said facts and circumstances as well as the reasons given, this Tribunal has come to the conclusion that, by adducing acceptable material evidence, both oral and documentary, the Petitioner has positively proved that, due to high speed, rash and negligent manner of driving of the Nano Car bearing Registration No.KA-51-ME- 7662 by its driver, i.e., the Respondent No.1, who is also the registered owner of the said offending Nano Car, the road traffic accident was taken place, wherein, the Petitioner had sustained one grievous injury. Accordingly, I answered Issue No.1 in the Affirmative.
19. ISSUE NO.2 :- The P.W.1 has stated that, at the time of accident, he was aged about 56 years old. In this regard, the Petitioner has produced Ex.P.10 Election Identity Card relating to him, which disclosed that, his date of birth is on 01.06.1956. The date of accident is on 19.12.2013. From the said dates, it appears that, at the time of accident, the 14 M.V.C.NO.1928/2014 (SCCH-7) Petitioner was 58 years old. Hence, the age of the Petitioner is considered as 58 years old at the time of accident.
20. The P.W.1 has stated that, at the time of accident, he was hale and healthy and was earning Rupees 21,539/- per month by working as a Supervisor at M/s Bangalore Club, Richmond Circle, Bangalore. In this regard, the Petitioner has produced Ex.P.9 Salary Certificate, which disclosed that, the monthly salary of the Petitioner is Rupees 21,539/- and he is an employee of Bangalore Club and designated as Supervisor. But, only based on the said Ex.P.9 Salary certificate, it cannot be believed and accept that, at the time of accident, the Petitioner was working as a Supervisor at Bangalore Club, Richmond Circle, Bangalore and he was earning Rupees 21,539/- per month, as, except Ex.P.9 Salary Certificate, the Petitioner has not produced any authenticated documents, like, Bank Statement, Salary Register, Appointment Letter, Attendance Register, etc., to consider his avocation and income. Even, the Petitioner has not examined his employer to consider the contents of Ex.P.9 Salary Certificate. Therefore, the case made out by the Petitioner that, at the time of accident, he was working as a Supervisor at Bangalore Club and he was earning Rupees 21,539/- per month cannot be believed and accept.
21. The P.W.1 has stated that, during the period of treatment, his left leg was plastered by white cement and treated conservatively and discharged with advise of follow-up treatment. He has further stated that, for follow-up 15 M.V.C.NO.1928/2014 (SCCH-7) treatment, he was visiting the same Hospital and he used to travel in an Auto Rickshaw by spending Rupees 200/- per trip and the amount includes up and down of the Auto Rickshaw fare and waiting charges also and he was visiting weekly once for one month and monthly once for 2 times and so far, totally has spent about Rupees 5,000/- towards his medical, transportation and conveyance expenses. He has further stated that, in spite of best and continuous treatment, he is suffering from disabilities, like, he cannot walk more, if he walk, he get pain and swelling in his left leg and he cannot climb stairs and he cannot stand more time and he cannot bear any weight on his left leg and he cannot squat on ground, he cannot fold his left leg freely as before as the movements of the same is restricted and he cannot use Indian type of toilet and hence, his left leg has become disabled. He has further stated that, now it is very difficult for him to work as a Supervisor and hence, his life has become dark and miserable.
22. No doubt, while answering Issue No.1, based on Ex.P.8 Wound Certificate, this Tribunal has already come to the conclusion that, in the said road traffic accident, the Petitioner had sustained undisplaced fracture of lateral malleolus, which is grievous in nature and immediately after the accident, he was taken treatment to the said accidental injuries at Sparsha Hospital. While discussing above, this Tribunal has already come to the conclusion that, at the time of accident, the Petitioner was 58 years old. This Tribunal has also held that, the offending Nano Car bearing Registration 16 M.V.C.NO.1928/2014 (SCCH-7) No.KA-51-ME-7662 as well as its driver, i.e., Respondent No.1 are, very much involved in the said road traffic accident. But, based on the same as well as oral version of P.W.1, it cannot be said that, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation under all the heads, as, except Ex.P.8 Wound Certificate, the Petitioner has not produced the Discharge Summary, Medical Bills, Medical Prescriptions and X-ray films, etc., to prove the line of treatment taken by the Petitioner to the accidental injuries. Even the Petitioner has not examined the treated Doctor. Even, no disability certificate issued by the competent Doctor is produced by the Petitioner to consider the alleged difficulties and disability stated by him in his evidence. Even the Petitioner has not proved his avocation and income by producing acceptable material evidence. Furthermore, the P.W.1 in his cross-examination has clearly stated that, now also he is doing work and his salary is remitted to his account. Furthermore, the P.W.1 in his examination-in-chief itself has clearly stated that, during the treatment period, his left leg was plastered by white cement and treated conservatively, but, no medical documents produced by the Petitioner to show that, after discharge, he has taken follow- up treatment as per the advise of the Doctors. From this, it is made crystal clear that, though the Petitioner had sustained one grievous injury in the said road traffic accident, it no way affect to continue his work and income and even after the accident, he is doing his work without any difficulties, by drawing the salary. Therefore, the Petitioner is not entitled for compensation under the different heads.
17 M.V.C.NO.1928/2014(SCCH-7)
23. However, in the said road traffic accident, the Petitioner had sustained one grievous injury, i.e., un- displaced fracture of lateral malleolus and had taken treatment at Sparsha Hospital on 19.12.2013 itself. By considering the nature of the injuries and line of treatment, this Tribunal feels that, it is just, proper and necessary to award a global compensation of Rupees 50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the above said sum from the date of Petition till payment.
24. While answering Issue No.1 this Tribunal has already come to the conclusion that, due to high speed, rash and negligent manner of driving of the offending Nano Car bearing Registration No.KA-51-ME-7662 by its driver, i.e., the Respondent No.1, the accident was taken place, wherein, the Petitioner had sustained one grievous injury. The Respondent No.2 through R.W.2 has stated that, it has issued a policy of insurance in favour of 1st Respondent in respect of Nano Car bearing Registration No.KA-51-ME-7662. In this regard, the Respondent No.2 has also produced Ex.R.3 Insurance Policy relating to the said offending vehicle, which disclosed that, at the time of accident, it is a new vehicle and its Insurance Policy is valid. Further, in Ex.P.4 Charge Sheet, there is no allegation leveled as against the Respondent No.1 that, at the time of accident, the Respondent No.1 was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive such class of vehicle. From this, it is made crystal clear that, at the time of accident, the Respondent No.1 is a registered owner-cum- driver and the Respondent No.2 is an insurer of the said offending Nano Car bearing Registration No.KA-51-ME-7662.
18 M.V.C.NO.1928/2014(SCCH-7)
25. The R.W.2, who is the Deputy Manager of the Respondent No.2 has stated in his examination-in-chief that, the Car was being driven by the Respondent No.1 as on the date of accident and he was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident to drive the Car and by driving the car without valid and effective license to drive the car as on the date of the accident and therefore, he has contravened the provisions of M.V. Act and the rules framed there under and has committed the breach of the Policy consciously and willfully and as such, the Respondent No.2 is not obligated under the policy to indemnify the insured Respondent No.1 or to pay any compensation to the Petitioner and as such, the petition as against him may be dismissed. He has further stated that, the Respondent No.1 had obtained the driving licence after the accident, i.e., on 31.12.2013 and it establishes that, the driver of the Car was not holding any driving licence as on the date of accident. To corroborate the oral version of R.W.2, the Respondent No.2 has also examined Superintendent in RTO Office, Electronic City, Bangalore as R.W.1, who has produced Ex.R.2 Extract of Driving Licence relating to the Respondent No.1 and has stated that, as per Ex.R.2 Driving Licence Extract, the Respondent No.1 is having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the Motor Cycle with gear and light motor vehicles for non-transport vehicles and date of issuance of the said on 31.12.2013 and the said driving licence is valid till 30.10.2016. No doubt, the R.W.1 in his cross-examination has stated that, as per Ex.R.2 Driving Licence Extract, the person, who is having the said driving licence is authorized to drive a Car and before issuing 19 M.V.C.NO.1928/2014 (SCCH-7) the driving licence, they used to issue LLR. But, based on the said evidence elicited form the mouth of R.W.1 by the Petitioner, it cannot be said that, before having Ex.R.2 Driving Licence, the Respondent No.1 was having a LLR, as, there is no endorsement are mentioned in Ex.R.2 Extract of Driving Licence for issuance of LLR. Further, though the Respondent No.1 has appeared before this Tribunal through his Learned Counsel, in spite of giving sufficient opportunities, he has not filed the written statement.
26. Even the Respondent No.1 did not care to produce the valid and effective driving licence to show that, at the time of accident, he was having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending Car. It is clearly mentioned in Ex.R.2 Extract of Driving Licence that, it is issued on 31.12.2013. The date of accident is on 19.12.2013. From the said dates, it appears that, after the date of accident, the Respondent No.1 had obtained the Ex.R.2 Driving Licence, which implies that, at the time of accident, the Respondent No.1 was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle. It is clearly mentioned Ex.R.3 Insurance Policy that, any person including the insured provided that, a person driving holds an effective driving licence at the time of accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a license and provided also that, the person holding an effective learner's license may also drive the vehicle and that, such a person satisfies the requirement of rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Admittedly, the offending vehicle is a non-transport vehicle and Ex.R.2 Driving licence 20 M.V.C.NO.1928/2014 (SCCH-7) Extract clearly disclosed that, the Respondent No.1 is having a driving licence to drive such class of vehicle from 31.12.2013. From this, it is made crystal clear that, at the time of accident, the Respondent No.1, who was a registered Owner-cum-driver of the offending Car was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending Car and as such, the Respondent No.1 has violated the terms and conditions of the admitted Ex.R.3 Insurance Policy relating to the offending Car. Hence, the Respondent No.2, who is an insurer of the offending Car is not at all liable to pay the above said compensation and interest to the Petitioner. Since, the Respondent No.1, who being a registered Owner-cum- driver has violated the terms and conditions of the admitted Ex.R.3 Insurance Policy relating to the offending Car, he is alone liable to pay the above said compensation and interest to the Petitioner. Hence, the petition filed by the Petitioner as against the Respondent No.1 is liable to be partly allowed and the petition filed by the Petitioner as against the Respondent No.2 is liable to be rejected. Hence, Issue No.2 is answered accordingly.
27. ISSUE NO.3 :- For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following, ORDER The petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is hereby partly allowed with costs as against the Respondent No.1.
21 M.V.C.NO.1928/2014(SCCH-7) The petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is hereby rejected as against the Respondent No.2.
The Petitioner is entitled for global compensation of Rupees 50,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of payment, from the Respondent No.1.
The Respondent No.1 shall deposit the said compensation and interest in this Tribunal, within one month from the date of this Order.
In the event of deposit of compensation and interest, entire amount shall be released in the name of the Petitioner through account payee cheque, on proper identification.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rupees 1,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then, pronounced by me in the open Court on this, the 21st day of July, 2015.) (INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR) IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
22 M.V.C.NO.1928/2014(SCCH-7) ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE PETITIONER :-
P.W.1 : Sri. P.Krishnaiah
S/o Sri. Puttaswamygowda
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED BY THE PETITIONER :-
Ex.P.1 : True copy of FIR
Ex.P.2 : True copy of Complaint
Ex.P.3 : Certified copy of Statement of Sri. Balan
Ex.P.4 : True copy of Charge Sheet
Ex.P.5 : True copy of Spot Panchanama
Ex.P.6 : True copy of Spot Sketch
Ex.P.7 : True copy of MVI Report
Ex.P.8 : True copy of Wound Certificate
Ex.P.9 : Salary Certificate
Ex.P.10 : Notarised Xerox Copy of Election
Identity Card relating to P.Krishnaiah
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE RESPONDENTS :-
R.W.1 : Veeranna S/o Ramaiah. V
R.W.2 : Guruprasad S/o Basavarajaiah
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED BY THE RESPONDENTS :-
Ex.R.1 : Authorisation Letter dated 09.03.2015 Ex.R.2 : Extract of Driving Licence relating to Prapagar Martin. P.S. Ex.R.3 : True copy of Insurance Policy (INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR) IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.