Bangalore District Court
Sri.M.S.Mahadevappa vs The Manager on 29 June, 2017
BEFORE THE COURT OF XXI ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES
JUDGE AND THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
AT BENGALURU (SCCH-23)
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2017.
PRESENT:
SRI.N.N.YALAVATTI, B.Com. LLB(Spl),
XXI ADDL. SCJ & XIX ACMM
MEMBER - MACT, BENGALURU
M.V.C No.3141 of 2016
PETITIONER: Sri.M.S.Mahadevappa, 61 years,
S/o late Shivanna,
R/a No.264, 2nd Main Road,
Bhuvaneshwari Layout,
Hesaraghatta Road,
Bengaluru-560 057.
(By Sri.B.K.Kumar, Advocate)
vs.
RESPONDENTS: 1. The Manager,
Universal Sompo Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd.,
No.7/3, KUD Tower, 2nd Floor,
Old Madras Road, Indiranagara,
Bengaluru-560 038.
(Insurer of offended vehicle
car bearing Regn.No. KA 02 D 9958)
(By Sri.Ravi.S.Samprathi, Advocate)
2. Sri.Udaya.S. S/o Shambu,
No.102, Mahathma Gandhi slum
Basaveshwara Nagara,
Bengaluru North.
(RC owner of fended vehicle
car bearing Regn.No.KA 02 D 9958)
(Exparte)
-o0o-
SCCH.23 2 MVC.3141/2016
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed the present petition under Sec.166 of M.V. Act for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- from the respondents.
2. That on 12.1.2016 at about 9.20 p.m. in front of Purvika Mobile store near S.M.Circle, S.M.Road, Peenya, Bengaluru, the driver of the car bearing Regn.No.KA-02 D-9958 belonging to respondent No.2 insured with respondent No.1 driven it rashly and negligently and dashed against ahead stationed petitioner's car bearing Regn.No.KA 02-D 6370, as a result of which, the car belonging to the petitioner went ahead and dashed against stationed ahead car as a result of which, the rear as well as front portion of the Innova car of the petitioner was severely damaged. The police have registered the case against the driver of offending car and filed the charge sheet. The Police have seized all the three vehicles and after required formalities and conducting IMV inspection, the petitioner's car was released. The said Innova car landed in the showroom for repair. The show room has issued repair tax invoice bill of Rs.4,14,565/-. Bajaj Insurance company has paid Rs.1,75,251/- out of total repair cost and the petitioner has paid remaining repair cost of Rs.2,39,314/-. The car of the petitioner was SCCH.23 3 MVC.3141/2016 landed at the showroom for a period of two months and therefore, the petitioner has spent Rs.800/- per day towards his daily transportation cost by using Uber taxi. This accident was occurred purely on rash & negligent driving by the driver of the offending car. Therefore, respondent No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay repair cost compensation amount and requested to award compensation as prayed.
3. In spite of serving the notice, respondent No.2 who is the owner of the offending car remained absent and placed exparte.
4. In response to the notice, the respondent No.1 has appeared through its counsel and resisted the case of the petitioner by filing objections by contending that the petitioner has filed this claim petition on an imaginary ground and compensation amount claimed by him is excessive, exorbitant and arbitrary. The respondent No.1 has seriously disputed its liability by contending that the owner of the offending car has violated Sec.134(c) and 158(6) of MV Act. Offending car is not at all involved in the alleged accident. This accident was occurred on a rash & negligent driving of the car by the petitioner. The car of the petitioner was duly insured with package policy and petitioner has preferred the claim with his insurer Bajaj Alliance Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd., and received the amount SCCH.23 4 MVC.3141/2016 of Rs.1,75,251/- towards damage amount in full and final satisfaction from his insurance company. Hence, the petitioner is estopped from maintaining the above petition. Therefore, the claim petition filed by the petitioner may be dismissed.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, my learned predecessor has framed the following issues:
1. Whether the petitioner proves that his Innova car bearing Regn.No. KA 02 MD 6370 was severely damaged in the road traffic accident alleged to have been occurred on 12.1.2016 at about 9.20 p.m. in front of Purvika Mobile store near S.M.Circle, S.M.Road, Peenya, Bengaluru, due to rash & negligent driving by the driver of car bearing Regn.No.KA 02 D 9958 ?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitle for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. What order or award?
6. In order to prove the case of the petitioner, the petitioner got himself examined as PW.1, PW.2 was examined on his behalf and Ex.P.1 to 20 were got marked.
Respondent No.1 has failed to enter into witness box to prove their defence.
7. I have heard the lengthy arguments.
SCCH.23 5 MVC.3141/2016
8. On the basis of materials available on record my finding on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1: Affirmative
Issue No.2: Partly in the affirmative.
Issue No.3: As per final order for the following:
REASONS
9. Issue No.1: I have carefully scrutinized the oral evidence of PW.1 along with copy of documents pertaining to the criminal case registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. The advocate for the respondent No.1 strongly contended before the court that this accident was occurred when the petitioner all of a sudden stopped his vehicle by applying brake without giving any signal. Therefore, this accident occurred on the negligence of the petitioner and the claim petition filed by the claimant is not maintainable. I have given careful consideration to the points urged by both the side. The evidence of PW.1 and the documents pertaining to the criminal case registered against the driver of the offending vehicle speaks that the petitioner has stopped his car near SM Circle in front of Purvika Mobile store and waiting for green signal at that time, the offending car came in high speed and dashed against the rear side of the stationed car of the petitioner as a result of which, the car proceeded over further and dashed against the SCCH.23 6 MVC.3141/2016 stationed ahead car. Therefore, the Innova car of the petitioner was badly damaged. If at all the driver of the offending car had taken a little care at the junction, this accident would not have been occurred. Therefore, the available records including the evidence of PW.1 are sufficient to say that this accident was occurred purely on rash & negligent driving by the driver of the offending car. Hence, I answer issue No.1 accordingly.
10. Issue No.2: I have carefully scrutinized the oral evidence of PW.1 & 2 along with documents Ex.P.9, P.11 to P.17, P.20. Evidence of PW.1 & 2 speaks that Innova car of the petitioner was severely damaged in the above accident and it was landed in a showroom for a period of two months. The showroom authorities have issued job card, repair tax invoice including receipt of the payment of the repair cost. First we shall turn our attention on Ex.P.17 along with evidence of PW.2. PW.2 is working as Senior Manager in Ravindu Motors Pvt.Ltd. of Bengaluru. As per his evidence, the petitioner brought his car for repair, at his showroom, the showroom authorities have assessed and issued repair tax invoice bill of Rs.4,14,565/- and after repair, a sum of Rs.1,75,251/- was paid by the car's insurance company that is, Bajaj Allianz Gen.Ins.Co. and remaining amount of Rs.2,39,314/- was paid by the petitioner. PW.2 has produced the notarized copy of job card, notarized SCCH.23 7 MVC.3141/2016 card of the actual bill, notarized copy of insurance liability letter and notarized copy of customer liability receipt of Rs.2,39,314/-. Evidence of PW.1 and 2 are corroborating with Ex.P.17 to P.20. PW.1 & 2 have faced searching cross-examination but nothing was elicited to disbelieve their evidence.
11. During the course of argument, learned advocate for the insurance company draw my attention to IMV Report marked at Ex.P.7 and submitted that the car of the petitioner was not at all damaged in the above accident. As per Ex.P.7, the car bearing Regn.No.KA 03-MD 6370 was damaged but not car bearing Regn.No. KA 02-MD 6370. The registration number of the petitioner 's car is KA 02-MD 6370 but not KA 03-MD 6370. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitle to claim compensation amount. I have given careful consideration to the points urged by the advocate for the petitioner. It is true that the Innova car number is wrongly mentioned as KA 03-MD 6370 instead of KA 02-MD 6370. As per available records, three vehicles were involved in this accident. The Police had seized three vehicles involved in the accident. The Inspector of Motor Vehicle has rightly mentioned the registration number of the remaining two seized vehicles. Due to human error, he has wrongly mentioned Innova car of the petitioner as KA 03-MD 6370 instead of KA 02- MD 6370. It is a human error and bound to be occur due to rush SCCH.23 8 MVC.3141/2016 of work but the available records speak that the Innova car of the petitioner was also involved in the accident and it was seized by the Police along with other two involved vehicles. The inspector of the RTO inspected all these three seized vehicles on the requisition of the IO and seizure Mahazar and other documents pertaining to the criminal case speaks that the Innova car bearing Regn.No. KA 02 MD 6370 was involved in the accident and it was seized by the Police along with other two vehicles and submitted the requisition to the RTO for inspection of seized vehicles. Therefore, the Inspector of the RTO has wrongly mentioned the number of Innova car as KA 03-MD 6370 instead of KA 02-MD 6370. So, it is a human error and it can be ignored. Therefore, the argument canvassed by the advocate for the insurance company is not sustainable.
12. At the cost of repetition once again, I would like to say that the Innova car of the petitioner was landed for a period of two months at the show room. The showroom authorities have assessed the damages and issued repair tax invoice bill of Rs.4,15,565/- and after repair, a sum of Rs.1,75,251/- was claimed by the petitioner from his insurer that is, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. and remaining amount of Rs.2,39,314/- was paid by the petitioner. Therefore, the present insurance company that is respondent No.1 is liable to pay Rs.2,39,314/- SCCH.23 9 MVC.3141/2016 to the petitioner as compensation amount. Because, this accident was occurred purely on the rash & negligent driving by the driver of the offending car belonging to respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.1 and policy was in force and the driver of the offending car had a valid and effective driving licence. Therefore, respondent No.1 being the insurer of the offending car has to indemnify the risk.
The petitioner has not produced any receipts to show that he has spent the amount towards his traveling expenses to reach his office from his house and therefore, he is not entitle for any amount under the head of conveyance charges. Hence the respondent No.1 is directed to deposit the amount as per final order.
13. Issue No.3:- In view of the discussion made supra, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER The claim petition under Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act filed by the petitioner is hereby allowed in part with cost.
The petitioner is awarded total compensation of Rs.2,39,314/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the deposit of the amount in the tribunal.SCCH.23 10 MVC.3141/2016
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally to pay compensation to the petitioner.
The 1st respondent shall deposit the said compensation amount into the Tribunal within 90 days from the date of this order.
After deposit of compensation amount, same to be released to the petitioner with interest.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcript thereof is corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 29th day of June 2017.) (N.N.YALAVATTI) XXI ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XIX ACMM,BENGALURU.
A N N E X U R E. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER PW.1 : M.S.Mahadevappa PW.2 : Praveen.K.S. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER Ex.P.1: FIR Ex.P.2: Complaint Ex.P.3: Spot Mahazar Ex.P.4: Rough sketch Ex.P.5: Sec.133 Notice sent to respondent under Ex.P.6: Reply notice SCCH.23 11 MVC.3141/2016 Ex.P.7: IMV Report Ex.P.8: Charge sheet Ex.P.9: Tax Invoice for repair of Innova car Ex.P.10: Receipt No.69991 dated: 11.3.2016 Ex.P.11: Claim settlement form issued by Bajaj Allianz Gen.Ins.Co. for repair of the car Ex.P.12: Notarized Copy of DL (Original perused and returned) Ex.P.13: Notarized copy of RC (Original perused and returned) Ex.P.14: Bill for paper publication Ex.P.15: Registration certificate issued by Commercial Tax Department Ex.P.16: Tax registration certificate Ex.P.17: Notarized copy of job card Ex.P.18: Notarized copy of actual bill of Rs.4,14,565/- Ex.P.19: Notarized copy of insurance liability letter of Rs.1,75,251.04/-
Ex.P.20: Notarized copy of customer liability receipt of the amount of Rs.2,39,314/- (this amount has been paid by the customer after deduct by insurance company) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS NIL LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:
NIL (N.N.YALAVATTI) XXI ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XIX ACMM, BENGALURU.SCCH.23 12 MVC.3141/2016
AWARD SCCH.NO:23 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA: BENGALURU CITY M.V.C.No.3141/2016 PETITIONER: Sri.M.S.Mahadevappa, 61 years, S/o late Shivanna, R/a No.264, 2nd Main Road, Bhuvaneshwari Layout, Hesaraghatta Road, Bengaluru-560 057.
(By Sri.B.K.Kumar, Advocate) vs. RESPONDENTS: 1. The Manager, Universal Sompo Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd., No.7/3, KUD Tower, 2nd Floor, Old Madras Road, Indiranagara, Bengaluru-560 038. (Insurer of offended vehicle car bearing Regn.No. KA 02 D 9958) (By Sri.Ravi.S.Samprathi, Advocate)
2. Sri.Udaya.S. S/o Shambu, No.102, Mahathma Gandhi slum Basaveshwara Nagara, Bengaluru North.
(RC owner of fended vehicle car bearing Regn.No.KA 02 D 9958) (Exparte)
-o0o-
WHEREAS, this petition filed on __________ by the petitioner/s above named under Sec.166 of the M.V.C. Act praying for the compensation of Rs._________ (Rupees SCCH.23 13 MVC.3141/2016 _________________________________for the injuries sustained by the petitioner/Death of ___________ in a Motor Accident by Vehicle No.___________. WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before Sri.N.N.Yalavatti, 21st Addl. Judge & 19th ACMM, Member, MACT, Bengaluru, in the presence of Sri/Smt.________________ Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt.________________ Advocate for respondent. The claim petition is decreed as under :-
ORDER The claim petition under Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act filed by the petitioner is hereby allowed in part with cost.
The petitioner is awarded total compensation of Rs.2,39,314/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the deposit of the amount in the tribunal.
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally to pay compensation to the petitioner.
The 1st respondent shall deposit the said compensation amount into the Tribunal within 90 days from the date of this order.SCCH.23 14 MVC.3141/2016
After deposit of compensation amount, same to be released to the petitioner with interest.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1000/-.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this the.......... day of ................2017.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: BENGALURU.
COST OF THE PETITION
By the
Petitioner/s Respondents
No.1 No.2
Court fee paid on Petition 10-00
Court fee paid on Powers
Court fee paid on I.A.
Process
Pleaders Fee
Total Rs.
Decree Drafted Scrutinized by
Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR
MEMBER, M.A.C.T,
METROPOLITAN AREA,
BENGALURU.
SCCH.23 15 MVC.3141/2016
Dt: 29.6.2017
(Order pronounced in the Open Court vide separate judgment) ORDER The claim petition under Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act filed by the petitioner is hereby allowed in part with cost.
The petitioner is awarded total compensation of Rs.2,39,314/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the deposit of the amount in the tribunal.
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally to pay compensation to the petitioner.
The 1st respondent shall deposit the said compensation amount into the Tribunal within 90 days from the date of this order.
After deposit of compensation amount, same to be released to the petitioner with interest.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(N.N.YALAVATTI) XXI ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XIX ACMM,BENGALURU.SCCH.23 16 MVC.3141/2016
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL & XXI ASCJ, XIX ACMM, BENGALURU (SCCH-23) DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016 MVC.3141/2016 Petitioner : Sri.M.S.Mahadevappa vs. Respondent : Universal Sompo Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd., & anr.
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that his Innova car bearing Regn.No. KA 02 MD 6370 was severely damaged in the road traffic accident alleged to have been occurred on 12.1.2016 at about 9.20 p.m. in front of Purvika Mobile store near S.M.Circle, S.M.Road, Peenya due to rash & negligent driving by the driver of car bearing Regn.No.KA 02 D 9958 ?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitle for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. What order or award?
(N.N.YALAVATTI) XXI ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XIX ACMM, BENGALURU.