Bangalore District Court
S.R. Manjunath vs Pepsico India Holdings Pvt Ltd on 11 March, 2025
KABC020031192020
BEFORE THE COURT OF I ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACJM &
MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU.
(SCCH-11)
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH - 2025
PRESENT: SRI.NARENDRA.B.R., B.Sc, L.L.B.
I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACJM
& MEMBER - MACT
MVC No.555/2020
PETITIONER:
Sri.S.R.Manjunath S/o Late Raje Gowda
Aged about 34 years
R/at.33, Dharmaraya Swamy
Temple Road, Melina Pete
Hosakote, Bengaluru Rural.
(By - Smt.Champa.C, Advocate)
-Versus-
RESPONDENT:
Pepsico India Holdings Pvt Ltd.,
# 2, Byrappa Garden
Thanisandra Main Road
Nagawara, Next to IBM
Bengaluru - 560045.
(Car No.KA-03-NC-3973 Belonging to
SCCH-11 2 MVC.No.555/2020
One of the branch office).
(Respn - By Sri.Ayyanna Sharanappa, Adv.)
J U D G M E N T
This petition is filed by the petitioner U/s.166 of Motor Vehicle Act, claiming compensation of ₹.20,00,000/- along with interest from the date of petition till its realization for injuries sustained by the petitioner.
2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that on 13.09.2018 at about 8.30 - 8.35 p.m., the petitioner was returning from Hirandanahalli towards Hosakote in his Motor Cycle bearing Regn.No.KA-01- HC-7815 and when he reached near Commercial Tax Office, a Lorry was parked on the left side of the road and at that time one Car bearing Regn.No.KA-03- NC-3973, driven by its driver at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against SCCH-11 3 MVC.No.555/2020 petitioner's motor cycle and also dashed against the lorry which was parked resulting in accident. Due to said accident, the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Thereafter, the petitioner was shifted to Silicon City Hospital and then shifted to Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru, wherein he took treatment as an inpatient and spent a sum of ₹.2,00,000/- towards medical, food, nourishment, conveyance and other incidental expenses.
Prior to the accident, the petitioner was hale and healthy and was working as a POP work (False Celling work) and earning a sum of ₹.30,000/- per month. Due to the accidental injuries, the petitioner suffered permanent disability. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of car by its driver. The respondent, being the owner of the offending vehicle, is liable to pay SCCH-11 4 MVC.No.555/2020 compensation to the petitioner.
3. In pursuance of notice, the respondent appeared before the tribunal through his counsel and filed the written statement.
4. In the Written Statement, the respondent denied the contents of claim petition specifically and categorically. The respondent also denied age, occupation and income of petitioner as well as place, time and manner of accident, involvement of offending vehicle and injuries sustained by him. Further the respondent contended that the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable either in law or on facts and same is liable to be dismissed. Further contended that the respondent is not the owner of the car, as has been misunderstood by petitioner. Further the respondent had already transferred the ownership and possession of the car much before the date of accident in question. SCCH-11 5 MVC.No.555/2020 Further this respondent owned the car in the past and it was registered in State of Haryana. After the sale of car, the person who purchased the car changed the registration of Karnataka for the reasons unknown to this respondent. However, the registration was got done in the name of this respondent and not in the name of purchaser. Further respondent is wrongly shown in the Karnataka vehicle registration records as the owner of the car. Further this respondent had insured the car with TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited. Further TATA AIG in turn facilitated the sale of the wrecked car on an as-is-where-is basis to one Mr.Sameer residing at No.77, Mackan Road, Bharathi Nagar, Bengalru (Present Owner). Further on 29.11.2017 TATA AIG issued a communication to the answering respondent calling upon this respondent to hand over the vehicle wreck along with its allied accessories SCCH-11 6 MVC.No.555/2020 to the present owner. Further contended that on 29.11.2017, the new owner executed a notarized affidavit in Bengaluru recording the fact that he had purchased the car that he was aware that the car had met with an accident and that it was sold to him 'as a salvage'. Pertinently, in the said affidavit he certified that he would be fully responsible for all challans, insurance, taxes and any accident which may occur in future and the legal formalities in relation thereto. Significantly, he also stated that he alone would be responsible for the transfer of the title of the car "under the law and in the records of the appropriate authorities". Further TATA AIG duly paid a sum of ₹.3,11,385/- to this respondent by way of a bank transfer on 04.12.2017.
5. Further contended that the present owner thereafter got the car registered in the state of Karnataka. Thus the car got the present registration SCCH-11 7 MVC.No.555/2020 number and however as mentioned earlier, the present owner got the registration done in the name of this respondent till this respondent discovered the relevant facts following the receipt of the notice dated: 12.11.2018 from the circle inspector of police, Hoskote Circle Bengaluru in relation of FIR number 350 of 2018. Further the TATA AIG issued a communication dated: 03.04.2019 in respect of transfer of car from this respondent to present owner that "Subsequent to an accident dt: 16.09.2017 Pepsico had raised an insurance claim for damages to said car vide claim No.0820504390A, which was settled as Constructive Total Loss as per terms and conditions of policy since gross repair amount exceeded 75% of IDV (insured declared value). Tata AIG facilitated the sale of said damaged audi car to one Mr.Sameer. Further on 29.11.2017 TATA AIG issued a letter to Pepsico calling upon Pesico to handover SCCH-11 8 MVC.No.555/2020 the wrecked Audi Car with all its allied accessories of vehicle and Mr.Sameer took possession of Audi Car from M/s.Pepsico. Further contended that the said Audi Car was declared to be a constructive total loss and purchased by Mr.Sameer in November 2017 and thereafter Pepsico ceased to have ownership or actual physical possession of the said audi car. Further contended that the registration of said car has been converted from previous HR-26-CQ-5670 to KA-03-NC-3973 by the present buyer and is currently insured with Go-digit General Insurance Co., Ltd., Policy No.D001360597 for the period 14.09.2018 to 13.09.2019. Further it is clear that this respondent was not the owner of car. The amount claimed by the petitioner is highly exorbitant. Hence, prayed for dismissal of petition.
6. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned predecessor in office framed the following: SCCH-11 9 MVC.No.555/2020
ISSUES
1. Whether petitioner proves that, he sustained grievous injuries in the accident that occurred on 13.09.2018 at about 8.30 to 8.35 p.m., Bengaluru-
Kolar NH-75 Road, Opposite to
Commercial Tax Office, Bidarahalli
Hobli, Bengaluru, when he was riding a motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-
01-HC-7815, due to the rash and
negligent driving of Car bearing
registration No.KA-03-NC-3973 by its driver?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed in the claim petition? If so, what is the quantum of compensation and from whom?
3. What order or award?
7. In order to prove the contentions of the petition, the petitioner got examined himself as PW.1 and got examined Dr.Ramesh working as Orthopaedic Surgeon at Victoria Hospital examined as PW.2 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.22 and closed evidence of his side. On the other hand, the authorized representative of respondent examined SCCH-11 10 MVC.No.555/2020 as RW.1 and got marked documents at Ex.R.1 to 5 and closed his side of evidence.
8. Heard the arguments on both the side and perused the materials available on record. The learned counsel for respondent filed written arguments. I have carefully perused the written arguments filed by learned counsel for respondent.
9. Findings of this tribunal on the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative;
Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative;
Issue No.3 : As per final order for the
following:-
-:REASONS:-
10. Issue No.1:- The petitioner contended that on 13.09.2018 at about 8.30-8.35 p.m, accident occurred when he was riding his Motor Cycle bearing SCCH-11 11 MVC.No.555/2020 Regn.No.KA-01-HC-7815 on Bengaluru-Kolar NH-75 Road, opposite to commercial tax office, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru, due to the rash and negligent driving of the Car bearing Regn.No.KA-03-NC-3973 by its driver in which he sustained grievous injuries.
11. In order to prove rash and negligent driving of the Car bearing Regn.No.KA-03-NC-3973 by its driver, the petitioner examined himself as PW.1 by filing his affidavit in lieu of chief examination, wherein he reiterated the averments made in the petition.
12. In order to prove rash and negligent riding of offending motor cycle bearing Regn.No.KA-03-JH- 3573 by its rider, the petitioner got examined as PW.1. In the chief examination, PW.1 deposed that due to rash and negligent driving of offending car by its rider, the accident occurred. PW.1 is cross examined on behalf of respondent and nothing to SCCH-11 12 MVC.No.555/2020 controvert or rebut the contention of petitioner related to accident and negligence of driver of offending car, could be elicited in the cross examination.
13. Further, in order to prove the accident and negligence of the rider of offending vehicle, the petitioner furnished FIR which is marked as Ex.P.1. The said document discloses that case is registered against the driver of offending vehicle based on the first information statement lodged by one Manjunath, who is the petitioner in the present case, related to accident occurred on 13.09.2018. In the FIR, the accident is stated to have been caused due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by its rider. The accident is stated to have been caused due to negligence on the part of driver of offending vehicle. The petitioner also furnished spot mahazar which is marked as Ex.P.10. The said document SCCH-11 13 MVC.No.555/2020 discloses that the police visited the place of incident after registration of FIR and the place of incident is described in the said document. In the mahazar also, the accident is stated to have been caused due to negligence on the part of driver of offending vehicle. Ex.P.11 is the IMV Report, wherein the damages caused to the vehicles are mentioned. The said document discloses the aspect of damages caused to the offending car as well as two motorcycles stated to be involved in accident. Ex.P.11 discloses the aspect of damages caused to the offending vehicle. The driver or owner of the offending vehicle not provided satisfactory explanation regarding the manner in which damages are caused to the vehicles. The said document clearly indicates involvement of offending vehicles in the accident. Ex.P.13 is the Wound certificate which discloses the aspect of injuries sustained by SCCH-11 14 MVC.No.555/2020 petitioner in the road traffic accident. The petitioner also furnished certified copy of intimation given by hospital to the police related to the accident which is marked as Ex.P.12. The said document discloses the aspect of occurring of accident as contended by petitioner. In the said document, it is mentioned that the petitioner brought to the hospital with history of accident. The I.O., after completion of investigation, filed the final report against the rider of the offending vehicle for the offence punishable U/s.279, 338 304(A), 283 of IPC and U/s.122, 177, 196 of M.V.Act, which is marked as Ex.P.2. In the final report also, the accident is stated to have been caused due to negligence on the part of driver of offending vehicle. The police filed the final report against the driver of offending vehicle after detailed investigation. The driver or owner of offending SCCH-11 15 MVC.No.555/2020 vehicle does not appear to have questioned the correctness of the investigation. No satisfactory materials are placed by the respondent to show that the investigation is not conducted in a proper manner. The driver or owner of offending vehicle does not appear to have challenged or questioned the FIR or final report filed by the police. In the FIR as well as final report, the accident is stated to have been caused due to negligence on the part of driver of offending vehicle which aspect does not appear to have been challenged in any manner. The respondent not furnished any satisfactory materials to rebut or controvert the documents furnished by petitioner related to negligence of driver of offending vehicle in the cause of accident. The respondent neither appeared nor placed any satisfactory materials in order to controvert or rebut the documents furnished by petitioner. No SCCH-11 16 MVC.No.555/2020 satisfactory materials are being placed before the Tribunal to disprove the contention of petitioner pertaining to the aspect of negligence on the part of driver of offending vehicle in the cause of accident.
14. The authorized representative of respondent got examined as RW.1 and got marked documents at Ex.R.1 to 5. The evidence of RW.1 is not of much assistance to the respondent in order to disprove or rebut the contention of petitioner related to the aspect of involvement of offending vehicle and negligence of driver of offending vehicle. The evidence of RW.1 discloses that respondent disputed the aspect of ownership over the offending vehicle but does not disclose the aspect of non-involvement of offending vehicle. The evidence of RW.1 will not be of assistance to show that there is no negligence on the part of driver of offending vehicle in the SCCH-11 17 MVC.No.555/2020 cause of accident.
15. The respondent not placed satisfactory materials before the tribunal to disprove the case of petitioner. In the absence of sufficient and satisfactory materials to the contrary, the documents furnished by the petitioner are to be considered for ascertaining the aspect of negligence. The respondent not furnished any materials to show that there is no negligence on the part of driver of offending vehicle in the cause of accident. On perusal of entire record, it discloses that the driver of offending vehicle has driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner that resulted in the accident. Under these circumstances, relying upon the oral evidence of PW.1 coupled with the documents produced by petitioner, this tribunal is of the opinion that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent riding of Car bearing Regn.No.KA- SCCH-11 18 MVC.No.555/2020 03-NC-3973 by its driver and same resulted in grievous injuries to the Petitioner. Accordingly, Issue No.1 held in the Affirmative.
16. Issue No.2: In view of answering issue No.1 in the Affirmative, the petitioner is entitled for compensation. In order to assess the compensation, the Tribunal has to look into several factors like injury, pain and suffering sustained by the petitioner and amount spent by the petitioner towards medical expenses, food and extra nourishment and medical attendants, conveyance, loss of income during treatment, disability, loss of amenities etc.
i) Towards injury, pain and suffering:- The petitioner contended that due to accident he sustained injuries and underwent surgery and later discharged with an advice to take follow up treatment. In order to prove the injuries sustained, the petitioner produced Wound certificate which is SCCH-11 19 MVC.No.555/2020 marked as Ex.P.13, wherein the injuries sustained by petitioner are mentioned and the injuries are stated to be grievous in nature. On perusal of records, the petitioner appears to have taken treatment at the hospital as an inpatient. The petitioner furnished discharge summary issued by Victoria Hospital which is marked as Ex.P3. The said document discloses the aspect of treatment availed by the petitioner at the hospital. The petitioner got examined Dr.Ramesh, working as Orthopaedic Surgeon at Victoria Hospital as PW.2 and got marked documents at Ex.P18 to 20. PW.2/doctor has deposed that he examined the petitioner for assessment of permanent physical disability and the petitioner is stated to be having disability of right lower limb at 20% and to the whole body at 10%. By considering the injuries and facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal is of the view that the compensation of ₹.50,000/- SCCH-11 20 MVC.No.555/2020 appears just and reasonable towards pain and suffering.
(ii) Towards Medical Expenses: The petitioner claimed compensation towards medical expenses. The petitioner contended that he took treatment at Hospital. The petitioner produced 19 medical bills for ₹.22,796/- as per Ex.P.5, one advance receipt marked at Ex.P.6 and 12 medical prescriptions marked at Ex.P.7. The respondents not rebutted the medical bills by placing cogent evidence. No materials are placed to controvert or rebut the bills furnished by the petitioner. So, this tribunal is of the view that compensation of ₹.22,796/- appears just and reasonable towards medical expenses.
(iii) Towards food, extra nourishment and medical attendant charges: On perusal of records, the accident occurred on 13.09.2018 and the petitioner took treatment as an inpatient at the hospital. On SCCH-11 21 MVC.No.555/2020 perusal of evidence, the petitioner was admitted as an inpatient at the Hospital as he has sustained injuries. So, during the time of treatment the petitioner might have required good food and extra nourishment. The petitioner has produced Ex.P.3 - Discharge Summary, which discloses the aspect of petitioner availing treatment as an inpatient from 18.09.2018 to 26.09.2018 i.e., for a period of 09 days. Considering the said facts, the Tribunal is of the view that compensation of ₹.500/- per day for 09 days to a sum of ₹.4,500/- appears just and reasonable towards food, extra nourishment and medical attendant.
(iv) Towards Conveyance:
The petitioner is the resident of Dharmaraya Swamy Temple Road, Melina Pete, Hosakote, Bengaluru Rural and got admitted to hospital for treatment. In order to prove the said aspect, the petitioner has SCCH-11 22 MVC.No.555/2020 produced Discharge Summary marked at Ex.P.3. Considering the injuries and facts of the case, the tribunal is of view that the compensation of ₹.10,000/- appears just and proper towards conveyance charges.
(v) Towards loss of income during treatment:
The petitioner has contended that he was working as a POP Work (false celling work) and earning ₹.30,000/- p.m. In order to prove said aspect, the petitioner not produced any document. The petitioner not furnished any materials to show that he was earning ₹.30,000/- per month. No satisfactory materials are placed by the petitioner to substantiate his contention related to occupation and income. In the absence of satisfactory materials, notional income is to be considered. By considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the notional income of the petitioner is considered SCCH-11 23 MVC.No.555/2020 as ₹.12,500/-. On perusal of record, it appears that petitioner might not have attended his work for some time due to accidental injuries. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for ₹.20,000/- towards loss of income during treatment.
(vi) Towards Loss of future earning capacity:
The petitioner contended that due to accident, he sustained permanent disablement. The petitioner examined Dr.Ramesh, working as Orthopaedic Surgeon at Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru as PW.2 who examined the patient clinically and radiologically to assess the disabilities. PW.2 deposed that petitioner sustained bimalleolar fracture right ankle and underwent internal fixation medial and lateral malleolous and later discharged. The doctor examined the petitioner for assessment of disability and assessed the disability to right lower limb at 20% and to the whole body at 10%. In order to prove the SCCH-11 24 MVC.No.555/2020 disability, doctor has produced Ex.P.18 to 20 i.e., case sheet, OPD Book and recent X-ray film. The materials on record disclose that the petitioner sustained injury to the leg due to the accident. In the cross examination, PW.2 stated that the petitioner is able to do normal activities with difficulties. PW.2 not stated that the petitioner is not able to do any activities due to the accidental injuries. Further, the fracture appears to have been united and said aspect is stated by PW.2 also in the cross examination. On perusal of evidence of PW.2, the petitioner is stated to have restriction of joint movement and difficulty to squat on floor, climb upstairs, walk on slope and stand on affected limb. The said difficulties do not appear to cause difficulties for the petitioner in doing his normal activities which aspect is stated by PW.2 also. By considering the oral and documentary evidence and SCCH-11 25 MVC.No.555/2020 facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the petitioner can do his work with difficulty. As per ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar V/s. Ajay kumar and another and considering facts and circumstances of the case, the functional disability is assessed at 05%.
In order to prove the age, the petitioner produced Ex.P.4 - Notarized Copy of Aadhaar Card, wherein the date of birth is mentioned as 04.06.1986. The accident occurred on 13.09.2018. As per the document furnished by the petitioner, the age of the petitioner appears to be 32 years as on the date of accident. The respondent not placed any materials to rebut or disprove the document furnished by petitioner related to age. In the absence of rebuttal materials, the document furnished by petitioner is to be considered for ascertaining the age of petitioner. Thus, the age of SCCH-11 26 MVC.No.555/2020 the petitioner is considered as 32 years at the time of accident, for applying multiplier. As per Smt.Sarla Verma case '16' multiplier is applicable.
As per ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar V/s. Ajay Kumar and another, this tribunal not deducted personal expenses of petitioner out of his gross income. Hence, future earning capacity of the petitioner due to permanent disability works out as under :
Annual Income before accident : (₹.12,500/- x 12) = ₹.1,50,000/-
Loss of future earning p.a. (05% of prior annual
income) = ₹.7,500/-.
Multiplier applicable with reference to age - 16 Loss of future earnings - (₹.7,500/- x 16) = ₹.1,20,000/-.
The petitioner is entitled for ₹.1,20,000/- under the head of loss of future earning capacity. SCCH-11 27 MVC.No.555/2020
(vii) Deprivation of Future Amenities:- The doctor opined that the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and he is unable to do his day-today activities as earlier. By considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal is of the view that compensation of ₹.10,000/- appears just and reasonable under the head deprivation of future amenities.
(viii) Towards Future Medical Expenses:
The doctor/PW.2 has opined that the petitioner needs another surgery for removal of implants for which they have not given any estimation. PW.2 not stated about actual expenses that might be incurred by the petitioner for surgery. The petitioner also not furnished any materials to show the expenses that might be incurred for removal of implants. By considering the facts and circumstances of the case ₹.20,000/- appears just and reasonable under the SCCH-11 28 MVC.No.555/2020 head deprivation of future medical expenses.
17. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for compensation as follows:
Sl.No. Particulars Amount
a. Towards injury pain and ₹.50,000/-
suffering
b. Towards Medical Expenses ₹.22,796/-
c. Towards food and extra ₹.4,500/-
nourishment and medical
attendant
d. Towards conveyance ₹.10,000/-
e. Towards loss of income ₹.20,000/-
during treatment
f. Towards loss of future ₹.1,20,000/-
earning
g. Deprivation of future ₹.10,000/-
amenities
h. Towards future medical ₹.20,000/-
expenses
Total compensation ₹.2,57,296/-
The petitioner is entitled for total compensation of ₹.2,57,296/-.
18. In view of ratio and dictum laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in MFA.No.100090 of SCCH-11 29 MVC.No.555/2020 2014 C/w. MFA.No.25107 of 2013 between Vijay Ishwar Jadhav and others Vs. Ulrich Belchior Fernandes and another, the petitioner is entitled for interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.
19. The petitioner has filed petition against the respondent. It is already held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Car bearing Regn.No.KA-03-NC-3973 by its driver. The respondent contended that the offending vehicle met with an accident prior to the date of present accident and the wreck of vehicle is sold to one Mr.Sameer by intimating the same to the concerned insurance company. In order to substantiate the said aspect, the respondent furnished Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.5 documents. Ex.R.1 is the letter issued by TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited to the respondent, wherein it is mentioned that the vehicle has been SCCH-11 30 MVC.No.555/2020 sold on as is where is basis. Further Ex.R.2 is the affidavit stated to have been executed by Mr.Sameer, who stated to have purchased the vehicle in question. Ex.R.4 is the Certificate of Registration pertaining to offending vehicle. The said document stands in the name of respondent and same does not appears to have been transferred in the name of one Mr.Sameer who stated to have purchased the vehicle.
The registration certificate pertaining to the offending vehicle appears to be still standing in the name of respondent and the respondent not furnished any materials to show that the registration certificate of offending vehicle stands in the name of purchaser i.e., Mr.Sameer. It is pertinent to note that as per Sec.50 of M.V.Act, the transferor of the vehicle is under the obligation to notify the concerned Transport authority regarding the change of ownership. The respondent neither SCCH-11 31 MVC.No.555/2020 contended nor furnished any materials to show that the aspect of transfer of ownership in favour of Mr.Sameer through the insurance company, has been intimated to the concerned authority as per required under the provisions of M.V.Act. The word used in Sec.50 is 'shall' and it is mandatory on the part of the transferor to intimate the aspect of transfer of ownership of the vehicle to the concerned authority. The materials on record disclose that the registration certificate pertaining to the offending vehicle stands in the name of respondent as on the date of accident. As stated above, the respondent not furnished any materials to show the aspect of intimation being given to the concerned authority about the transfer of ownership. The statutory obligations cast on respondent does not appear to have been fulfilled and no materials are placed by the respondent to show the aspect of transfer of SCCH-11 32 MVC.No.555/2020 ownership. The materials furnished by respondent are not sufficient to show that the ownership of the vehicle has been duly transferred in accordance with law. The documents furnished by respondent itself disclose that the registration certificate stands in the name of respondent as on the date of accident. As per the materials on record, the registration certificate pertaining to the offending vehicle stands in the name of respondent and the respondent is considered to be the owner of offending vehicle. In the absence of compliance of statutory provisions regarding transfer of ownership of offending vehicle, the contention of respondent does not sustain for consideration. The materials on record are not sufficient and satisfactory in order to consider transfer of ownership of vehicle in accordance with law and procedure. The registration certificate pertaining to the vehicle appears to be SCCH-11 33 MVC.No.555/2020 standing in the name of respondent as on the date of accident.
20. Further, the counsel for petitioner furnished Judgment and Award passed by Hon'ble MACT in MVC.No.4302/2020 and MVC.No.4303/2020, wherein the present respondent is also a party to the said petition. The respondent No.3 in the said cases appears to have raised similar contention as that of the present petition and the said contention appears to have been not upheld. In the said cases also, the Hon'ble MACT observed that the registration certificate of the offending vehicle has not been changed and same stands in the name of respondent No.3, who is the respondent in the present case, as on the date of accident. In both the cases, the present respondent is considered as owner of the offending vehicle and held liable to pay the compensation to the injured person. In the present SCCH-11 34 MVC.No.555/2020 case also the respondent raised similar contention as that of the above mentioned cases and the said contention is not duly substantiated by cogent materials. It is also pertinent note that at the time of accident, the registration certificate does not appear to have been transferred in the name of purchaser and the respondent does not appear to have taken any action or initiative for holding the ownership of the vehicle transferred to the name of purchaser. As discussed above, Sec.50 of M.V.Act casts obligation on the transferrer to intimate the authority about transfer of owner, but the respondent does not appear to have complied the provisions and the obligation imposed under the Act. Further, the respondent appears to be aware about the registration certificate being not changed to the name of the purchaser and in spite of same, respondent does not appear to have initiated any SCCH-11 35 MVC.No.555/2020 action for changing the registration certificate to the name of purchaser. The respondent could have made application or approached the concerned authority for transferring the ownership of vehicle, but the respondent does not appear to have initiated said action. The materials on record do not disclose any application being made by respondent to the concerned authority seeking to transfer the ownership pertaining to the vehicle. The document relied by respondent itself discloses that the registration certificate stands in the name of respondent as on the date of accident and he is construed to be the owner of the offending vehicle at the time of accident as per law. As such, the contention raised by respondent is not substantiated by satisfactory materials. As such, the respondent is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner, being the owner of offending vehicle at the time of SCCH-11 36 MVC.No.555/2020 accident. The contentions of respondent are not substantiated by cogent and satisfactory materials. The materials on record disclose that registration certificate pertaining to offending vehicle stands in the name of respondent as on the date of accident and respondent is considered to be the owner of the offending vehicle at the time of accident. As per the materials on record, the offending vehicle does not appear to have valid and effective policy of insurance at the time of accident. Thus, respondent, being the owner of offending vehicle, is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Hence, this Tribunal answers Issue No.2 in Partly Affirmative.
21. Issue No.3: In view of the findings given on the above said issues, this Tribunal proceeds to pass the following:
O R D E R The claim petition filed by the SCCH-11 37 MVC.No.555/2020 petitioner Under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with cost.
The petitioner is entitled for compensation amount of ₹.2,57,296/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Seven Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Six only) with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization. (future medical expenses shall not carry any interest) Respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner and to deposit the said compensation amount within a period of two months from the date of award.
Entire compensation amount shall be released in favour of petitioner as amount is meager one.
After deposit of compensation amount with interest thereon disburse amount as mentioned above as per guidelines laid down SCCH-11 38 MVC.No.555/2020 by Hon'ble High Court in MFA.No.2509/2019 (ECA) and as per General Circular No.2/2019 dated 19.8.2019.
The petitioner hereby directed to produce particulars of his Bank Account, with name of Bank, IFSC Code, Account Number with copy of First Page of Bank Pass Book which contained compulsorily photographs of petitioner, which is duly attested by concerned Bank. Further petitioner shall produce PAN Card/Aadhaar Card.
In case of deposit of awarded amount with interest thereon by respondent, the petitioner is entitled to receive amount as mentioned above after expiry of period provided for filing an appeal.
The Advocate fee is fixed at ₹.1,000/-. SCCH-11 39 MVC.No.555/2020 Draw up award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer over computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this 11th day of March, 2025.) (NARENDRA.B.R) I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACJM & MEMBER - MACT, BENGALURU A N N E X U R E LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
PW.1 - Sri.S.R.Manjunatha PW.2 - Dr.Ramesh DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS: Ex.P1 FIR Ex.P2 Charge Sheet Ex.P3 Discharge Summary Ex.P4 Notarized copy of Aadhaar Card Ex.P5 Medical bills Ex.P6 Advance receipt Ex.P7 Medical Prescriptions Ex.P8 Medical Reports SCCH-11 40 MVC.No.555/2020 Ex.P9 X-ray films Ex.P10 Spot Panchanama Ex.P11 IMV Report Ex.P12 Police intimation Ex.P13 Wound Certificate Ex.P14 Re-statement of injured Ex.P15 133 Notice Ex.P16 Reply to the notice Ex.P17 Photographs Ex.P18 Case Sheet Ex.P19 OPD Book Ex.P20 Recent X-ray film Ex.P21 Judgment and Award in MVC.No.4302- 20 Ex.P22 Judgment and Award in MVC.No.4303- 20 LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:- RW.1 Sri.Manoj Saini LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:- Ex.R1 Copy of communication of sale SCCH-11 41 MVC.No.555/2020 Ex.R2 Affidavit Ex.R3 Beneficiary payment advice Ex.R4 Copy of RC Ex.R5 Letter (NARENDRA.B.R.) I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACJM & MEMBER - MACT, BENGALURU Digitally signed by NARENDRA BR NARENDRA Date: BR 2025.03.15 11:02:37 +0530