Bangalore District Court
Chandrashekara B.M vs Arunachala Logistics Pvt Ltd on 16 April, 2024
KABC020054202022
BEFORE THE COURT OF XXIV ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE AND THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL AND ACMM (SCCH-26) AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF APRIL 2024
PRESENT
SRI. APPASAB NAIK,
B.A.L.L.B.(Spl)
XXIV ADDL. SCJ & ACMM & MEMBER - MACT
BENGALURU.
M.V.C.No.966 OF 2022
Petitioner : B.M.Chandrashekara,
S/o. Late. B.K.Mariyappa,
Aged about 48 years,
R/at No.1346, 11th Cross,
9th Main Road, Mahalakshmipuram,
Bengaluru - 560 086.
(By Sri. Vijayakumar.P.B.......... Adv.,)
Vs.
Respondents : . 1. M/s. Arunachala Logistics Pvt. Ltd.,
Prop. T Surendra Mohan,
No.101/5, 101/8H Aladahalli Shanthi
Grama, Hassan - 573 201.
SCCH-26 2 MVC. 966/2022
CORPORATE OFFICE
M/s. Arunachala Logistics Pvt. Ltd.,
No.8-2-1/1/3, Avatar Nivas, Srinagara
Colony Main Road, Panjagutta,
Hydrabad, Telangana - 500 082.
(By Sri. M.K.Venkatesh.......... Adv.,)
2. The New India Assurance Co Ltd.,
TB-HUB, No.9/2, Mahalakshmi Chambers,
M.G.Road, Bengaluru - 560 001.
Policy No.61030031190300007489
Policy period from 25.02.2020 to 24.02.2021
(By Sri. V.Rajashekar Reddy........ Adv.,)
****
JUDGMENT
This petition Under section 166 MV act is filed seeking compensation of Rs.70,000/- for the damages caused to the Petitioner's vehicle in a road traffic accident.
2. The brief facts of the petitioner's case are as under:
It is stated that on 22.09.2020 at about 12.25 pm., when the petitioner was driving his Innova vehicle bearing reg.No.KA-02-MG-1157 from Kunigal to Bangalore via Kunigal SCCH-26 3 MVC. 966/2022 Huliyurdurga road in a careful and cautious manner by following all the traffic rules on extreme left side of the road and when the petitioner reached near Gavimatta Bridge at Kunigal by that time a driver of the Heavy Lorry bearing reg.No.KA-13-C-8696 came from back side in a high speed, rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner's vehicle from back side due to the terrible impact the vehicle forced to rash ahead dashed to Bridge in its front portion and rear portion got damaged. Due to the impact, the vehicle got damaged and got repaired at Ravindu Toyota Rajajinagar industrial suburb opposite to Isckon Temple Bangalore by spending Rs.31,872/-. The petitioner had not claimed any insurance either on his own vehicle or against the lorry insurance, he paid the amount to said Ravindu Toyota through his SBI credit card bearing No.4377486564300232 dated 25.09.2020, other than that he suffered with vehicle depreciation, loss of rent during the period of repair, suffered loss of paying tax and other SCCH-26 4 MVC. 966/2022 monitory benefits, RTO expenses, conveyance, incidental inconvenience and other inconvenience during the period of repair and incurred expenses to use alternative transportation accordingly the petitioner is entitled for Rs.70,000/- towards vehicle damage.
3. The Kunigal police have registered a criminal case against the driver of the Cantor Lorry bearing reg.No.KA-13- C-8696 in crime No.341/2020 and the said police have also filed a charge sheet against the said offending vehicle driver. The accident occurred due to sole negligence of driver of said lorry and the respondent No.1 is the Owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the said vehicle. Hence, they have prayed to award compensation of Rs.70,000/- from the respondents.
4. In response to the petition notice, the Respondent No.1 and 2 have appeared before the court through their respective counsel and filed their written statement. SCCH-26 5 MVC. 966/2022
5. Respondent No.1 has filed its objection denying the petition averments. It has contended that, he has Registration Certificate owner of the HGV EICHER Lorry bearing reg.No.KA-13-C-8696 and all the records are standing in the name of respondent No.1 and insured with 2 nd respondent vide policy No.61030031190300007489 valid from 25.02.2020 to 24.02.2021. Further contended that, the driver of the respondent No.2 vehicle was having valid and effective driving license and valid permit. For all these, it has prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed its objection denying the petition averments. It has admitted the issuance of insurance policy in respect of offending vehicle and it was valid as on the date of accident. It has also contended that the owner of the alleged offending vehicle and the concerned police have not complied the mandatory provisions of Sec.134(c) and 158(6) of MV Act. However, its liability is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. It has SCCH-26 6 MVC. 966/2022 denied the negligence of the driver of offending vehicle in causing the accident and it was the negligence of petitioner himself who was driving his car in a rash and negligent manner. For all these, it has prayed for dismissal of the petition.
7. From the above said pleadings of the parties, my predecessor in Office has framed the following issues:
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that, on 22-
09-2020 at about 12.25 p.m. when he was returning from Kunigal to Benglauru via Kunigal - Huliyurudurga road in his Innova vehicle bearing No.KA-02-MG-1157, at that time the driver of the lorry bearing No.KA-13-C- 8696 came from his behind in a high speed and in negligent manner and dashed to his car and due to impact the front and rear portion of his car got damaged and he incurred sum of Rs.70,000/- to repair the same, as mentioned in claim petition?
2. Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed in the petition? If so, from which respondent?
3. What Order or Award?
SCCH-26 7 MVC. 966/2022
8. In order to prove the claim, the Petitioner examined himself as PW.1 and got marked 9 documents as per Ex.P.1 to P.9.
9. The Respondent No.2 has not adduced rebuttal evidence.
The learned counsel for second respondent has submitted following citations:
1. ILR 2000 KAR 2009 (KSRTC Vs. George Ninum)
2. ACJ 2006 page 2566 (D.I.Narayana Swamy and another Vs. National Insurance Co. ltd., and another)
10. I have heard the counsel on both sides and have perused the material on record.
11. My findings to the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative.
Issue No.2: Partly in affirmative.
Issue No.3: As per the final order, for the following:SCCH-26 8 MVC. 966/2022
REASONS
12. ISSUE NO.1:- In order to prove his claim, the petitioner has relied on the police and medical records. PW.1 is the direct witness to the incident as he is owner and driver of the damaged car. He has deposed that on 22.09.2020 at about 12.25 pm., when he was driving his Innova vehicle bearing reg.No.KA-02-MG-1157 from Kunigal to Bangalore via Kunigal Huliyurdurga road in a careful and cautious manner by following all the traffic rules on extreme left side of the road and when he reached near Gavimatta Bridge at Kunigal by that time a driver of the Heavy Lorry bearing reg.No.KA-13-C-8696 came from back side in a high speed, rash and negligent manner and dashed against his vehicle from back side due to the terrible impact the vehicle forced to rash ahead dashed to Bridge in its front portion and rear portion got damaged. Due to the impact, the vehicle got damaged and got repaired at Ravindu Toyota Rajajinagar industrial suburb opposite to Isckon Temple Bangalore by spending Rs.31,872/-.
SCCH-26 9 MVC. 966/2022
13. In support of his claim he has produced copy of FIR at Ex.P1, complaint at Ex.P2, panchanama at Ex.P3, IMV report at Ex.P.4 and charge sheet at Ex.P.5.
14. Respondent No.2- Insurance Company contended that the accident occurred due to sole negligence of the petitioner who driven the vehicle in rash and negligent manner. Further contended that, there were no damages caused to the vehicle so only the petitioner has not produced survey report and estimation for repair and with the help of show room he has produced the bill. PW.1 has denied the same during cross examination. The FIR and charge sheet both are filed against the driver of offending Eicher Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-13-C- 8696.
15. Further it is the contention of the respondent No.2 that, the petitioner is not the owner of the Innova car bearing reg.No.KA-02-MG-1157 as on the date of accident and the petitioner has produced any documents to support the SCCH-26 10 MVC. 966/2022 expenses incurred by him. To corroborate the same, the petitioner has produced his RC at Ex.P.7. Except the suggestion during cross examination and contention in the written statement of the Respondent, they have not produced any documentary evidence and in the absence of documents to prove the negligence of the petitioner himself, it is held that it was the sole negligence of the driver of offending offending Eicher Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-13-C-8696. Police have filed charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle after complete investigation and the said charge sheet is not at all challenged by both the Respondents.
16. The evidence of PW-1 corroborates with the documents produced by him. There is nothing elicited to disprove the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. From all the above documents it is clear that the Petitioner's car bearing reg.No.KA-02-MG-1157 got damaged in a road traffic accident that occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of SCCH-26 11 MVC. 966/2022 the driver of offending vehicle. Hence, Issue No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.
17. ISSUE NO.2:- In this case, the petitioner has claimed compensation of Rs.70,000/- towards damages caused to the Innova car in the accident. To prove the same he has relied on Ex.P.9 - vehicle repair bill issued by Toyota Ravindu Motors Pvt Ltd., dated 25.09.2020 to a tune of Rs.31,872/-.
18. The counsel for the respondent insurance company argued that, unless examined the author of the bill, the said document cannot be accepted for compensation. Therefore, he contended that, the petitioner is not entitled for compensation. On the other hand, the petitioner argued that, the petitioner has produced the MVA report, charge sheet, and photos as well as bills for his car repair and bank statement and contended that, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, the accident took place and his car has been damaged in the said accident and he has spent amount for his SCCH-26 12 MVC. 966/2022 car repair. Further contended he has produced bills for repair of his car as per Ex.P.9.
19. In this case the petitioner has not examined the author of the Ex.P.9 i.e. Cash bill. In view of the Judgment of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation V/s. George Ninum, unless examined the author of the document/bills, the said document cannot be accepted for award the special damages in the cases of road accident.
20. It is pertinent to note here that, in this case the petitioner has proved that, he is the owner of the car bearing No. KA-02-MG-1157 and also proved that, his car has been damaged due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Eicher Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-13-C- 8696. Therefore, when there is an accident and damage to the car, there must be a repair of the damaged part of the vehicle. SCCH-26 13 MVC. 966/2022
21. In view of non-examine the author of the Ex.P.9, this court declined to accept the Ex.P.9 to award compensation towards damages of petitioner's car. But when there is an accident and damage to the car by the negligence of driver of offending vehicle, such a situation there must be a repair, thereby the repair charges has to be paid. Now, the question is who has to pay? The petitioner has proved that the accident has been occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending Eicher Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-13-C- 8696. The respondent has not disputed the policy and its validity at the time of accident. The present petition is filed U/Sec.166 of M.V.Act as third party claimant against the respondents. The offending vehicle is belongs to owner of the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.2 is an insurance company of the offending vehicle. In view of third party claim by the petitioner, the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the petitioner due to caused damage to the petitioner's car in the alleged accident. Under these SCCH-26 14 MVC. 966/2022 circumstances, this court is of opinion that, due to damage caused by the offending vehicle the respondents are liable to pay compensation to such damages. Therefore, at this juncture, I relied the judgment of our Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, in the case of G.M.Umesh V/s. M/S Accenture Service in MFA No.822/2016 C/w.11/2016 and MFA No.821/2016 (MV) dated 10-01-2019. The Hon'ble High Court has held in this judgment that:-
"In so far as the appeal in MFA No.822/2016 is concerned, the owner of the vehicle claimed compensation of Rs.73,571/- with regard to the damages caused to the motorcycle. The learned Member assessed the damages caused to motorcycle and awarded global compensation of Rs.25,000/- and the Insurance Company was ordered to pay the said amount to the said owner as against the bill of Rs.25,000/-, which is just and proper and there are no grounds enhance the same. Nor I find any error in the global compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Hence MFA No.822/2016is rejected.SCCH-26 15 MVC. 966/2022
22. In this case also the Hon'ble High Court has granted compensation with respect to the damages of car in the accident.
23. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in MFA No.201256/2016 (MV) between NWKSRTC Vijayapur V/s.Ramanna S/o., Hanamappa @ Hanmant dated 26-03- 2018, In this case, Hon'ble High Court has not accepted the estimation for repair of the vehicle. But awarded the compensation by considering the damages to the vehicle in the accident.
24. It is the case of the Petitioner that, he was forced to incur Rs.70,000/- for vehicle depreciation RTO expenses, travelling expenses, incidental expenses, rent paid during the repair time for other rented vehicles. But except oral suggestion he has not produced any document to prove the same. Therefore, Petitioner is not entitled for Rs.70,000/-. Moreover, in view of above said facts and it has proved that Petitioner has spent an amount of Rs.31,872/- for repair of SCCH-26 16 MVC. 966/2022 the Innova car and he is entitled for compensation of said amount. By rounding of a figure, Petitioner is awarded Rs.32,000/- towards repair of the Innova car with reference to damages caused to it in the alleged accident. Therefore Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 being the owner and insurer of the offending Lorry are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. Hence, Issue No.2 answered accordingly.
25. ISSUE No.3: In view of the above discussion, reasons stated and findings given to Issue Nos. 1 & 2, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Claim Petition filed under Sec.166 of M.V.Act is allowed in part with cost. Petitioner is awarded compensation of Rs.32,000/- (Rupees Thirty Two Thousand only) together with interest @ 6% p.a. from SCCH-26 17 MVC. 966/2022 the date of petition till the date of deposit with the Tribunal.
The respondent No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. However, the respondent No.2 being insurer of offending Lorry vehicle is directed to deposit the compensation amount in this tribunal within one month from the date of this order.
On deposit of the compensation amount, entire amount along with entire interest shall be released in favour of the Petitioner through E-payment on proper identification and verification.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court dated this the 16 th day of April 2024).
(APPASAB NAIK) XXIV ADDL. SCJ & ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU.
SCCH-26 18 MVC. 966/2022ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined for Petitioner :
PW.1 : B.M.Chandrashekara II. List of documents marked for Petitioners :
Ex.P.1 True copy of FIR Ex.P.2 True copy of complaint Ex.P.3 True copy of panchanama Ex.P.4 True copy of IMV report Ex.P.5 True copy of charge sheet Ex.P.6 Notarized copy of Aadhar card Ex.P.7 Notarized copy of RC Ex.P.8 Notarized copy of Driving licence Ex.P.9 Vehicle repair bill
III. List of witnesses examined for Respondents:
---NIL---
IV. List of documents marked for Respondents:
----NIL---
(APPASAB NAIK) XXIV ADDL. SCJ & ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU.