Bangalore District Court
Is Solely Responsible And Main ... vs No.2 Is The Owner Of The Said Vehicle And ... on 2 February, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL. SMALL CAUSES AND ADDL.
MACT., BANGALORE, (SCCH-7)
Dated this, the 2nd day of February, 2017.
PRESENT : SMT.INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR,
B.Com.,LL.B.(Spl.),LL.M.,
IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM,
Court of Small Causes,
Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
M.V.C.No.5300/2014
C/w. M.V.C.No.5301/2014
Sri. Vishwanath, ..... PETITIONER IN
S/o. Chinappa, M.V.C.No.5300/2014
No.11, Kanakapura Main Road,
Ramesh Nagara,
Udayapura,
Bangalore South,
Bangalore - 560 082.
(By Sri. Shekharapa. H.C., Adv.,)
V/s
1. Sriram General Insurance ..... RESPONDENTS IN
Company Ltd., M.V.C.No.5300/2014
No.302, Red Floor,
S & S Corner Building,
Plot No.84, Hospital Road,
Shivaji Nagar,
Bangalore-560 025.
2. Nagaraj. B.V.,
S/o. Venkatesh. B.M.,
No.112, Attibele,
Anekal (Taluk)
Bangalore District,
SCCH-7 2 M.V.C.No.5300/2014
C/W M.V.C.No.5301/2014
Bangalore - 562 106.
(Owner of the Canter bearing
Registration No.KA-51-A-6446)
(R-1 By H.N. Keshava Prashanth, Adv.,)
(R-2 Exparte)
Smt. Nancy, ..... PETITIONER IN
W/o. Vishwanath, M.V.C.No.5301/2014
No.11, Kanakapura Main Road,
Ramesh Nagara,
Udayapura,
Bangalore South,
Bangalore - 560 082.
(By Sri. Shekharapa. H.C., Adv.,)
V/s
1. Sriram General Insurance ..... RESPONDENTS IN
Company Ltd., M.V.C.No.5301/2014
No.302, Red Floor,
S & S Corner Building,
Plot No.84, Hospital Road,
Shivaji Nagar,
Bangalore-560 025.
2. Nagaraj. B.V.,
S/o. Venkatesh. B.M.,
No.112, Attibele,
Anekal (Taluk)
Bangalore District,
Bangalore - 562 106.
(Owner of the Canter bearing
Registration No.KA-51-A-6446)
SCCH-7 3 M.V.C.No.5300/2014
C/W M.V.C.No.5301/2014
(R-1 By H.N. Keshava Prashanth, Adv.,)
(R-2 Exparte)
COMMON JUDGMENT
As per the Order dated 21.01.2016 passed on Memo in
M.V.C.No.5300/2014, M.V.C.No.5301/2014 is clubbed with the
said M.V.C.No.5300/2014 and the common evidence is recorded
in the said case. Hence, M.V.C.No.5300/2014 and
M.V.C.No.5301/2014 are pending for consideration and disposal
before this Tribunal by passing a common Judgment.
2. The Petitioner in M.V.C.No.5300/2014 has filed the
said petition as against the Respondents No.1 and 2 under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, praying to award
compensation of Rupees 3,00,000/- with interest at the rat of 18%
p.a.
3. The brief averments of the Petitioner's case in M.V.C.
No.5300/2014 are as follows;
a) On 17.10.2014 at about 10.00 a.m., near TVS Cross,
100 feet Road, Peenya Industrial Area Bangalore - 560 058, he
was riding the Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-05-JF-424,
from TVS Cross to Jalahalli Cross and one Canter bearing
Registration No.KA-51-A-6445 was come from his back side in
very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner without
following traffic rules and he was suddenly turned left and dashed
to his Motor Cycle and he and his wife both are fell down and
front left side wheel of the Canter passed his top of his Motor
SCCH-7 4 M.V.C.No.5300/2014
C/W M.V.C.No.5301/2014
Cycle front wheel, then, Motor Cycle has been completely scraped.
He sustained injuries all over body, i.e., Abrasions of right leg and
left knee and left hand and other injuries simple in nature.
b) He was shifted to People Tree Hospital, Bangalore and
he was admitted as an outpatient. Due to the injuries sustained in
the accident, still he is under medical treatment and he has
suffering from pain and the Doctor suggested to take one month
rest and as on today, he spent a sum of Rupees 50,000/- towards
medical treatment, convenience, etc.,
c) At the time of accident, he is running his own
Hardware Business in the name of Susheela Glass and Ply Wood
in Laxmipura Cross, Bangalore and he was earning of Rupees
50,000/-.
d) Due to the accidental injuries, he sustained physically
disability, mental agony and financial loss caused to him and due
to the accidental injuries, he is not working properly.
e) Peenya Traffic Police have registered the criminal case
as against the rider of the Canter bearing Registration No.KA-51-
A-6445 in their crime No.192/2014 punishable under Sections
279 and 337 of IPC.
f) The Respondent No.1 is the Insurer and the
Respondent No.2 is the Owner of the said vehicle and hence, both
the Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay
SCCH-7 5 M.V.C.No.5300/2014
C/W M.V.C.No.5301/2014
compensation of Rupees 3,00,000/- with interest of 18% p.a.,
from the date of accident. Hence, this petition.
4. Initially, though the notice was duly served on the
Respondent No.1, it was remained absent and hence, it was
placed as exparte on 05.02.2015. Later, the Respondent No.1 has
appeared before this Tribunal through its Learned Counsel and as
per the Order dated 10.06.2015 passed on I.A.No.I, the exparte
order is set-aside and the Respondent No.1 is taken on file. But,
initially, inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the Respondent
No.1 had not filed the written statement. Later, as per the Order
dated 05.02.2016 passed on I.A.No.III, the written statement filed
by the Respondent No.1 is taken on file.
5. Though the notice was duly served on the Respondent
No.2 through paper publication, he was remained absent and
hence, he is placed as exparte on 06.10.2015.
6. The Respondent No.1 inter-alia denying the entire case
of the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.5300/2014, has further contended
as follows;
a) All the material allegations made in the claim petition
are false and the petition is not maintainable either on facts are in
law against it.
b) It is true that, it has issued the policy in respect of the
vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-05-A-6445, but, the original
copy of the policy is in the possession and control of the
SCCH-7 6 M.V.C.No.5300/2014
C/W M.V.C.No.5301/2014
Respondent No.2. It hereby calls upon the Respondent No.2 to
produce the original policy. The liability of it is limited to the terms
and conditions of the Policy of Insurance issued, which is in
accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.
c) The person driving the vehicle "no relation in force" as
on the date of accident to drive the vehicle.
d) The driver of the vehicle has no driving licence as on
the date of accident. The Respondent No.2 knowingly entrusted
the vehicle to a person, who has no driving licence, in violation of
the policy condition. As per the Police records, One Mr. Vijay
Kumar S/o. Munirathanam was the driver of the insured vehicle
and he has no licence to drive the vehicle. After thorough
investigation, the Police have filed the Charge Sheet as against the
driver of the insured vehicle under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of
IPC, Section 3(1) R/w 181, 5 and 180 of IMV Act and it is further
clearly mentioned in the Charge Sheet filed by the Police
Authorities that, the driver of the insured vehicle was driving the
same without having licence and hence, it is clear that, the driver
has no licence to drive the vehicle as on the date of accident and
he was driving the same in violation of the terms and conditions of
the policy. The owner of vehicle has willfully entrusted the vehicle
to a person, who has no licence to drive the vehicle and further
the Charge Sheet filed by the Police Authorities reflects the same
and hence, this is a willful breach of the policy condition by the
insured and hence, it is not liable to pay any compensation.
SCCH-7 7 M.V.C.No.5300/2014
C/W M.V.C.No.5301/2014
e) The insured vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-05-A-
6445 was used in the public place without having valid permit and
fitness certificate. Using the vehicle in the public place without
having valid permit and fitness certificate is a clear violation of the
terms and conditions of the policy and also against to the
provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and hence, it is not liable to pay
any compensation.
f) It seeks protection under Section 147 and 149 of M.V.
Act.
g) As per Section 134(c) of M.V. Act, 1988, it is
mandatory duty of the owner of the vehicle to furnish the
particulars of policy, date, time and place of accident, particulars
of injured and the name of the driver and particulars of the driving
licence, but, the owner of the vehicle has not complied with
statutory demand. Hence, it is not liable to pay any compensation.
h) As per Section 158(6) of M.V. Act, 1988, it is a
mandatory duty of the concerned P.S., to forward all the relevant
documents to the concerned Insurer within 30 days from the date
of the information, but, the Peenya Traffic Police failed to forward
the documents and not complied with the statutory demand.
i) The Petitioner is not entitled to claim any interest on
non-pecuniary damages as per the Judgment reported in1995
ACJ (1) Page 366.
SCCH-7 8 M.V.C.No.5300/2014
C/W M.V.C.No.5301/2014
j) The insured vehicle is not at all involved in any
accident and it was intentionally implicated in collusion with the
owner and other Authorities in order to get the unlawful benefit
from the Insurance Company. If the claimant is able to prove that,
the insured vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-05-A-6445 is
involved in the said alleged accident, then, without prejudice to
the said contention, the unfortunate accident has occurred only
because of the negligence on the part of the Petitioner, who was
riding the Motor Cycle unmindfully. Hence, it is clear that, the
Petitioner is solely responsible and main architect for the
unfortunate accident and hence, it is not liable to pay any
compensation.
k) The instant petition filed by the Petitioner is false,
malicious, incorrect and malafide and is nothing, but, an abuse of
the process of the law and it is an attempt to waste the precious
time of this Hon'ble Forum, as, the same has been filed by the
Petitioner just to avail undue advantage for his own mistake. In
view of the above, it is clear that, the Petitioner has not
approached this Hon'ble Court with clean hands and with true
facts and he is trying to mislead this Hon'ble Court.
l) It craves leave of this Hon'ble Court to take all defences
available to the owner of the vehicle under Section 170 of M.V. Act
and to contest the case on all the grounds apart from those
specified under Section 149(2) of M.V. Act, in case, the owner of
the insured vehicle remains exparte.
SCCH-7 9 M.V.C.No.5300/2014
C/W M.V.C.No.5301/2014
m) It craves the leave of this Hon'ble Court to file an
additional counter at a later stage as and when the better
particulars come to its knowledge.
n) The amount of Rupees 3,00,000/- with interest and
costs claimed by the Petitioner in the petition is more excessive,
exorbitant and exaggerated. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition
with costs, else, its Company will be put to irreparable loss and
injury.
7. The Petitioner in M.V.C.No.5301/2014 has filed the
said petition as against the Respondents No.1 and 2 under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, praying to award
compensation of Rupees 5,00,000/- with interest at the rate of
18% p.a.
8. The brief averments of the Petitioner's case in M.V.C.
No.5301/2014 are as follows;
a) On 17.10.2014 at about 10.00 a.m., near TVS Cross,
100 feet Road, Peenya Industrial Area Bangalore - 560 058, she
was traveling with her husband on Motor Cycle bearing
Registration No.KA-05-JF-424, from TVS Cross to Jalahalli Cross
and one Canter bearing Registration No.KA-51-A-6445 was come
from their back side with its rider in very high speed and in a rash
and negligent manner without following traffic rules and he was
suddenly turned left and dashed to their Motor Cycle and due to
which, she and her husband, both were fell down and front left
side wheel of the Canter passed top of their Motor Cycle, then,
SCCH-7 10 M.V.C.No.5300/2014
C/W M.V.C.No.5301/2014
Motor Cycle has been completely scraped. She had sustained
injuries all over body, i.e., Open deep wound on left foot
measuring about abrasions over left hand (lateral aslept) and
other injuries in simple in nature.
b) She was shifted to People Tree Hospital, Bangalore and
she was admitted as an outpatient due to the injuries sustained in
the accident. After the treatment, she is not able to walk without
support and nobody is in Bangalore to take care of her, so, she is
went to her mother house in Tamilnadu and she is admitted as an
outpatient and taking treatment regularly in Shri Sai Multi-
Speciality Health Care Centre, No.113, P.H. Road, Thiruninravur -
602 024.
c) Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, still she
is under medical treatment and as on today, she spent a sum of
Rupees 1,00,000/- towards medical treatment, convenience, etc.,
d) At the time of accident, she is a housewife and she is
working in husband's shop hardware business in the name of
Susheela Glass and Ply wood in Laxmipura Cross, Bangalore and
she was earning of Rupees 15,000/-.
e) Due to the accidental injuries, she sustained physical
disability, mental agony and financial loss caused to her and due
to the accidental injuries, she is not working properly.
f) Peenya Traffic Police have registered the criminal case
as against the rider of the Canter bearing Registration No.KA-51-
SCCH-7 11 M.V.C.No.5300/2014
C/W M.V.C.No.5301/2014
A-6445 in their crime No.192/2014 punishable under Sections
279 and 337 of IPC.
g) The Respondent No.1 is the Insurer and the
Respondent No.2 is the Owner of the said vehicle and hence, both
the Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation of Rupees 5,00,000/- with interest of 18% p.a.,
from the date of accident. Hence, this petition.
9. Initially, though the notice was duly served on the
Respondent No.1, it was remained absent and hence, it was
placed as exparte on 05.02.2015. Later, the Respondent No.1 has
appeared before this Tribunal through its Learned Counsel and as
per the Order dated 10.06.2015 passed on I.A.No.I, the exparte
order is set-aside and the Respondent No.1 is taken on file. But,
initially, inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the Respondent
No.1 had not filed the written statement. Later, as per the Order
dated 05.02.2016 passed on I.A.No.III, the written statement filed
by the Respondent No.1 is taken on file.
10. Though the notice was duly served on the Respondent
No.2 through paper publication, he was remained absent and
hence, he is placed as exparte on 06.10.2015.
11. The Respondent No.1 inter-alia denying the entire case
of the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.5301/2014, has further contended
as follows;
SCCH-7 12 M.V.C.No.5300/2014
C/W M.V.C.No.5301/2014
a) All the material allegations made in the claim petition
are false and the petition is not maintainable either on facts are in
law against it.
b) It is true that, it has issued the policy in respect of the
vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-05-A-6445, but, the original
copy of the policy is in the possession and control of the
Respondent No.2. It hereby calls upon the Respondent No.2 to
produce the original policy. The liability of it is limited to the terms
and conditions of the Policy of Insurance issued, which is in
accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.
c) The person driving the vehicle "no relation in force" as
on the date of accident to drive the vehicle.
d) The driver of the vehicle has no driving licence as on
the date of accident. The Respondent No.2 knowingly entrusted
the vehicle to a person, who has no driving licence, in violation of
the policy condition. As per the Police records, One Mr. Vijay
Kumar S/o. Munirathanam was the driver of the insured vehicle
and he has no licence to drive the vehicle. After thorough
investigation, the Police have filed the Charge Sheet as against the
driver of the insured vehicle under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of
IPC, Section 3(1) R/w 181, 5 and 180 of IMV Act and it is further
clearly mentioned in the Charge Sheet filed by the Police
Authorities that, the driver of the insured vehicle was driving the
same without having licence and hence, it is clear that, the driver
has no licence to drive the vehicle as on the date of accident and
he was driving the same in violation of the terms and conditions of
SCCH-7 13 M.V.C.No.5300/2014
C/W M.V.C.No.5301/2014
the policy. The owner of vehicle has willfully entrusted the vehicle
to a person, who has no licence to drive the vehicle and further
the Charge Sheet filed by the Police Authorities reflects the same
and hence, this is a willful breach of the policy condition by the
insured and hence, it is not liable to pay any compensation.
e) The insured vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-05-A-
6445 was used in the public place without having valid permit and
fitness certificate. Using the vehicle in the public place without
having valid permit and fitness certificate is a clear violation of the
terms and conditions of the policy and also against to the
provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and hence, it is not liable to pay
any compensation.
f) It seeks protection under Section 147 and 149 of M.V.
Act.
g) As per Section 134(c) of M.V. Act, 1988, it is
mandatory duty of the owner of the vehicle to furnish the
particulars of policy, date, time and place of accident, particulars
of injured and the name of the driver and particulars of the driving
licence, but, the owner of the vehicle has not complied with
statutory demand. Hence, it is not liable to pay any compensation.
h) As per Section 158(6) of M.V. Act, 1988, it is a
mandatory duty of the concerned P.S., to forward all the relevant
documents to the concerned Insurer within 30 days from the date
of the information, but, the Peenya Traffic Police failed to forward
the documents and not complied with the statutory demand.
SCCH-7 14 M.V.C.No.5300/2014
C/W M.V.C.No.5301/2014
i) The Petitioner is not entitled to claim any interest on
non-pecuniary damages as per the Judgment reported in1995
ACJ (1) Page 366.
j) The insured vehicle is not at all involved in any
accident and it was intentionally implicated in collusion with the
owner and other Authorities in order to get the unlawful benefit
from the Insurance Company. If the claimant is able to prove that,
the insured vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-05-A-6445 is
involved in the said alleged accident, then, without prejudice to
the said contention, the unfortunate accident has occurred only
because of the negligence on the part of the Petitioner, who was
riding the Motor Cycle unmindfully. Hence, it is clear that, the
Petitioner is solely responsible and main architect for the
unfortunate accident and hence, it is not liable to pay any
compensation.
k) The instant petition filed by the Petitioner is false,
malicious, incorrect and malafide and is nothing, but, an abuse of
the process of the law and it is an attempt to waste the precious
time of this Hon'ble Forum, as, the same has been filed by the
Petitioner just to avail undue advantage for his own mistake. In
view of the above, it is clear that, the Petitioner has not
approached this Hon'ble Court with clean hands and with true
facts and he is trying to mislead this Hon'ble Court.
l) It craves leave of this Hon'ble Court to take all defences
available to the owner of the vehicle under Section 170 of M.V. Act
and to contest the case on all the grounds apart from those
SCCH-7 15 M.V.C.No.5300/2014
C/W M.V.C.No.5301/2014
specified under Section 149(2) of M.V. Act, in case, the owner of
the insured vehicle remains exparte.
m) It craves the leave of this Hon'ble Court to file an
additional counter at a later stage as and when the better
particulars come to its knowledge.
n) The amount of Rupees 8,00,000/- with interest and
costs claimed by the Petitioner in the petition is more excessive,
exorbitant and exaggerated. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition
with costs, else, its Company will be put to irreparable loss and
injury.
12. Based on the above said pleadings, I have framed the
following Issues in both the cases;
ISSUES
In M.V.C.No.5300/2014
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that,
the accident occurred due to rash
and negligent driving of the Canter
bearing Reg.No.KA-51-A-6445 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?
SCCH-7 16 M.V.C.No.5300/2014
C/W M.V.C.No.5301/2014
In M.V.C.No.5301/2014
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that,
the accident occurred due to rash
and negligent driving of the Canter
bearing Reg.No.KA-51-A-6445 by
its driver and in the said accident,
she sustained injuries?
2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled
for compensation? If so, how much
and from whom?
3. What Order?
13. In order to prove their case, the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.5300/2014 himself has been examined as P.W.1 by
filing an affidavit as his examination-in-chief and has placed
reliance upon Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7 and the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.5301/2014 herself has been examined as P.W.2 by filing
an affidavit as her examination-in-chief and has placed reliance
upon Ex.P.8 to Ex.P.10. On the other hand, the Respondent No.1
has examined the Superintendent of RTO as R.W.1, Investigation
Officer as R.W.2 and its Legal Manager as R.W.3 and has placed
reliance upon Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.3.
14. Heard the arguments.
15. My answers to the above said Issues are as follows;
M.V.C.No.5300/2014
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative,
SCCH-7 17 M.V.C.No.5300/2014
C/W M.V.C.No.5301/2014
Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative,
The Petitioner is entitled
for compensation of Rupees
20,059/- with interest at
the rate of 9% p.a. from the
date of the petition till the
date of payment, from the
Respondent No.2.
Issue No.3 : As per the final Order,
M.V.C.No.5301/2014
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative,
The Petitioner is entitled
for compensation of Rupees
56,075/- with interest at
the rate of 9% p.a. from the
date of the petition till the
date of payment, from the
Respondent No.2.
Issue No.3 : As per the final Order,
for the following;
REASONS
16. ISSUE NO.1 IN BOTH THE CASES :- The P.W.1, who
is the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.5300/2014 has stated in his
examination-in-chief that, on 17.10.2014 at about 10.00 a.m.,
near TVS Cross, 100 feet Road, Peenya Industrial Area, Bangalore,
SCCH-7 18 M.V.C.No.5300/2014
C/W M.V.C.No.5301/2014
he was riding the Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-05-JF-
424, from TVS Cross to Jalahalli Cross, at that time, one Canter
bearing Registration No.KA-51-A-6445 was come from back side
on his Motor Cycle with very high speed and in a rash and
negligent manner without following traffic rules and he was
suddenly turned left and dashed to his Motor Cycle and he and
his wife both were fell down and front left side wheel of the Canter
passed top of his Motor Cycle front wheel and then, the Motor
Cycle has been completely scraped and he and his wife both are
sustained injuries all over body., i.e., Abrasions of right leg and
left knee and in left hand and other injuries of simple in nature,
but, he is suffering from inside pain and he was shifted to People
Tree Hospital, Bangalore and he was admitted as an outpatient
and due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he was admitted
on 17.10.2014 and discharged on 17.10.2014. He has further
stated that, the accident took solely due to rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the Canter bearing Registration No.KA-51-
A-6445 and the Peenya Traffic Police have registered the criminal
case as against the driver of the Canter bearing Registration
No.KA-51-A-6445 in their Crime No.192/2014 punishable under
Sections 279 and 337 of IPC.
17. The P.W.2, who is the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.5301/2014, who is a wife of the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.5300/2014, who was also a pillion rider of the Motor
Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-05-JF-424, has stated the same
evidence of P.W.1, in her examination-in-chief. She has further
stated that, she has sustained injuries, i.e., open deep wound on
SCCH-7 19 M.V.C.No.5300/2014
C/W M.V.C.No.5301/2014
left foot measuring about abrasions over left hand (lateral aslept)
and other injuries simple in nature and abrasions of left leg and
left knee and in left hand and other injuries simple in nature, but,
she is suffering from inside pain. She has further stated that, she
was shifted to People Tree Hospital, Bangalore and she was
admitted as an outpatient and due to the injuries sustained in the
accident, she was admitted on 17.10.2014 and discharged on
17.10.2014.
18. No doubt, both the Petitioners have not examined any
eye witness to consider the accident in question, which caused to
them. Further, the Petitioners have not produced the Driving
Licence relating to the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.5300/2014 to show
that, at the time of accident, the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.5300/2014 was having a valid and effective driving
licence to ride the Motor Cycle. Further, the P.W.1, who is the
Petitioner in M.V.C.No.5300/2014 has stated in his cross-
examination that, at the time of accident, he was having LLR to
ride the Motor Cycle and his wife was not having a license at the
time of accident to ride two wheeler and one month before the
accident, he has purchased the said Motor Cycle and till today, he
has not obtained the D.L. From this, it appears that, at the time of
accident, the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.5300/2014 was not having
valid driving licence to ride the Motor Cycle. Even the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.5300/2014 has not produced the said LLR. Further, the
P.W.1 has stated in his cross-examination that, till today, he has
not obtained the D.L. He has further stated that, at the time of
accident, no vehicle was coming on opposite side of the Motor
SCCH-7 20 M.V.C.No.5300/2014
C/W M.V.C.No.5301/2014
Cycle. Further, the P.W.2 in her cross-examination has stated
that, now she does not remember the name of the Hospital,
wherein, she had taken treatment immediately after the accident.
19. But, based on the said grounds that, the Petitioners
have not examined the eye witness of the accident in question to
consider their case, the non-production of the Driving Licence
relating to the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.5300/2014 and the evidence
elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 and P.W.2 by the Respondent
No.1 during the course of cross-examination, it cannot be thrown
away the above said oral evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, which has
been stated by them in their examination-in-chief, as, the
Petitioner in M.V.C.No.5300/2014 has produced Ex.P.1 FIR,
Ex.P.2 Complaint, Ex.P.3 Wound Certificate, Ex.P.4 Spot
Panchanama, Ex.P.5 Spot Hand Sketch and Ex.P.6 Charge Sheet
and the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.5301/2014 has produced Ex.P.8
Wound Certificate, which clearly disclosed that, there was no
negligence on the part of the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.5300/2014 in
riding his Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-05-JF-424 in
the commission of the said road traffic accident even though he
was not having a valid driving licence to ride the Motor Cycle, but,
the entire negligence is on the part of the driver of the offending
Canter bearing Registration No.KA-51-A-6445 in the commission
of the said road traffic accident, as, he came with very high speed,
rash and negligent manner on the back side of the said Motor
Cycle and suddenly took left turn even though the said Motor
Cycle was proceeding on the extreme left side of the accidental
road and dashed to the Motor Cycle on its behind and due to
SCCH-7 21 M.V.C.No.5300/2014
C/W M.V.C.No.5301/2014
which, both the Petitioners fell down from the said Motor Cycle
and the said Motor Cycle caused damages and the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.5300/2014 had sustained one simple injury and the
Petitioner in M.V.C.No.5301/2014, who was proceeding as a
pillion rider of the said Motor Cycle, had sustained one grievous
injury and one simple injury and they took treatment as an
outpatient to the said accidental injuries on 17.10.2014 itself at
People Tree Hospital and at the time of accident, the driver of the
said offending Canter was not having a valid and effective driving
licence to drive such class of offending Canter and its Owner had
allowed the said driver to drive it without driving licence, which is
clear from the following discussion. Furthermore, the P.W.1 in his
cross-examination has stated that, at the time of accident, he and
his wife were proceeding on the Motor Cycle from his mother
house to his shop and at the time of accident, he was riding the
Motor Cycle and after the accident, he was shifted to People Tree
Hospital and on the same day itself, he discharged and in the
alleged accident, he had sustained only simple injuries. Further,
the P.W.1 has clearly denied the suggestions put to him by the
Respondent No.1 during the course of cross-examination that, at
the time of accident, he did not know the ridden of the Motor
Cycle completely and due to which itself, he was not riding the
Motor Cycle properly and hence, due to his own negligence itself,
the alleged accident was taken place and only to claim more
compensation, he is giving false evidence by producing created
documents and the alleged accident was taken place due to his
own negligence and no negligence on the part of the driver of the
offending Canter. Further, the P.W.2 has also clearly denied the
SCCH-7 22 M.V.C.No.5300/2014
C/W M.V.C.No.5301/2014
suggestions put to her by the Respondent No.1 during the course
of cross-examination that, the alleged accident was taken place
due to negligence on the part of her husband and not on the part
of the negligence of the driver of the offending Canter and a false
complaint is lodged as against the driver of the offending Canter.
From this, it appears that, though the P.W.1 and P.W.2 have been
cross-examined by the Respondent No.1, nothing has been elicited
from their mouth to consider its specific defence. Furthermore,
though the notice was duly served on the Respondent No.2, who
was a R.C. Owner of the offending Canter bearing Registration
No.KA-51-A-6445 through paper publication, he was remained
absent and hence, he is placed as exparte. The non-appearance of
the Respondent No.2 in the present petitions clearly implies that,
he has indirectly admitted the entire case made out by the
Petitioners as against him in both the petitions. Furthermore, the
Investigating Officer has also filed a Charge Sheet as against the
Respondent No.2. More so, though the Respondent No.1 has
examined its Legal Manager as R.W.3, he has not stated anything
in his examination-in-chief about the accident in question, which
caused to both the Petitioners. Further, it is clearly proved by the
Respondent No.1 by examining the Superintendent RTO,
Electronic City, Bangalore as R.W.1 and the Investigating Officer
as R.W.2 that, at the time of accident, the driver of the offending
Canter bearing Registration No.KA-51-A-6445 was not having a
valid and effective driving licence to drive such class of offending
Canter.
SCCH-7 23 M.V.C.No.5300/2014
C/W M.V.C.No.5301/2014
20. The contents of Ex.P.1 FIR and Ex.P.2 Complaint
clearly disclosed that, the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.5301/2014, who
is a wife of the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.5300/2014 and also a
pillion rider and eye witness of the accident in question has lodged
Ex.P.2 Complaint before the Peenya Traffic Police as against the
driver of the offending Canter by alleging that, on 17.10.2014 at
10-00 a.m., she and her husband were proceeding on the Motor
Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-05-JF-424 as a rider and pillion
rider on Jalahalli Cross Road, at that time, the driver of the
Canter bearing Registration No.KA-51-A-6445 came with very high
speed, rash and negligent manner from TVS Cross towards
Jalahalli Cross and dashed to their Motor Cycle, which was
proceeding in front of the said Canter and due to the said impact,
both of them fell down along with the Motor Cycle and her
husband had sustained simple injury on his left hand and both
legs and she had sustained injuries on her left hand and the front
left wheel of the Canter ran over on their Motor Cycle and due to
which, the Motor Cycle caused damages and immediately after the
accident, public have shifted them to the People Tree Hospital
through Auto Rickshaw and they have taken treatment to the said
accidental injuries in the said Hospital and as such, she prayed to
take necessary legal action as against the driver of the offending
Canter and based on the said Complaint, the said Police have
registered a criminal case as against the driver of the said
offending Canter for the offences punishable under Section 279
and 337 of IPC under Crime No.192/2014. It is also clear from the
contents of Ex.P.1 FIR and Ex.P.2 Complaint that, there is no
delay as such in lodging Ex.P.2 Complaint by the eye witness and
SCCH-7 24 M.V.C.No.5300/2014
C/W M.V.C.No.5301/2014
injured of the said accident in question, which caused to both the
Petitioners.
21. The contents of Ex.P.4 Spot Panchanama and Ex.P.5
Spot Hand Sketch further clearly disclosed that, the entire
negligence is on the part of the driver of the offending Canter
bearing Registration No.KA-51-A-6445 in the commission of the
said road traffic accident, which came on the same road on the
same direction on the right side of the Motor Cycle and the said
Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-05-JF-424 was proceeding
on the extreme left side of the road and in the Junction place, i.e.,
edge of the Corner Road, the driver of the offending Canter took it
left side and dashed to the said Motor Cycle and the entire
negligence is on the part of the driver of the offending Canter and
the said offending Canter as well as its driver are very much
involved in the said road traffic accident and if the driver of the
offending Canter could have taken a little care while driving it at
the time of accident, he could have avoided the said road traffic
accident, which caused to both the Petitioners.
22. The contents of Ex.P.3 Wound Certificate clearly
disclosed that, with alleged history of road traffic accident, the
Petitioner in M.V.C.No.5300/2014 came to People Tree Hospital
with certain injuries said to have been caused on 17.10.2014 due
to accident and he examined on 17.10.2014 at 11-00 a.m., itself
and on examination, it is found that, he had sustained injuries,
i.e., abrasion over right leg and left knee and lend hand, which is
simple in nature. From this medical evidence, it is made crystal
SCCH-7 25 M.V.C.No.5300/2014
C/W M.V.C.No.5301/2014
clear that, the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.5300/2014 had sustained
one simple injury in the said road traffic accident.
23. The contents of Ex.P.8 Wound Certificate clearly
disclosed that, with alleged history of road traffic accident, the
Petitioner in M.V.C.No.5301/2014 came to People Tree Hospital
with certain injuries said to have been caused on 17.10.2014 due
to accident and she examined on 17.10.2014 at 11-00 a.m., itself
and on examination, it is found that, she had sustained the
injuries, i.e., CLW over left foot over 2nd toe fracture and multiple
abrasion over left foot, i.e., one grievous injury and one simple
injury. From this medical evidence, it is made crystal clear that,
the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.5301/2014 had sustained one grievous
injury and one simple injury in the said road traffic accident.
24. The contents of Ex.P.6 Charge Sheet further clearly
disclosed that, since during the course of investigation, it is found
that, due to very high speed, rash and negligent manner of driving
of the offending Canter bearing Registration No.KA-51-A-6445 by
its driver itself, the said road traffic accident was taken place on
17.10.2014 at 10-00 a.m., near ABB Junction, Peenya Industrial
Area 100 Feet Road, which came from TVS Cross towards N.H.4,
which dashed to the Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-05-
JF-424 on its behind, which was proceeding on the same road
itself on the same direction, wherein, both the Petitioners were
traveling as a rider and pillion rider and due to the said impact,
both of them fell down along with the Motor Cycle and the
Petitioner in M.V.C.No.5300/2014 had sustained simple injury
and the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.5301/2014 had sustained one
SCCH-7 26 M.V.C.No.5300/2014
C/W M.V.C.No.5301/2014
grievous injury and one simple injury and the said Motor Cycle
badly damaged and at the time of accident, the driver of the
offending Canter was not having a valid and effective driving
licence to drive such class of offending Canter and the Respondent
No.2, who was a R.C. Owner of the offending Canter had allowed
the said driver to drive it and after thorough investigation, the
Investigating Officer has filed a charge sheet as against the driver
of the offending Canter and its Owner, i.e., the Respondent No.2,
for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of
IPC and Section 3(1) R/w Section 181, Section 5 R/w Section 180
of M.V. Act. There is no allegation leveled by the Investigating
Officer in the said Charge Sheet as against the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.5300/2014 about his negligence in the commission of
the said road traffic accident, while riding his Motor Cycle bearing
Registration No.KA-05-JF-424.
25. From the above said material evidence, both oral and
documentary, it is clearly proved that, the entire negligence is on
the part of the driver of the offending Canter bearing Registration
No.KA-51-A-6445 in the commission of the said road traffic
accident and there was no negligence on the part of the Petitioner
in M.V.C.No.5300/2014 in riding his Motor Cycle bearing
Registration No.KA-05-JF-424 in the commission of the said road
traffic accident and the offending Canter bearing Registration
No.KA-51-A-6445 as well as its driver, are very much involved in
the said road traffic accident, wherein, the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.5300/2014 had sustained one simple injury and the
Petitioner in M.V.C.No.5301/2014 had sustained one grievous
SCCH-7 27 M.V.C.No.5300/2014
C/W M.V.C.No.5301/2014
injury and one simple injury. Accordingly, I answered Issue
No.1 in both the cases in the Affirmative.
26. ISSUE NO.2 IN BOTH THE CASES :-
27. ISSUE NO.2 IN M.V.C.NO.5300/2014 :- The P.W.1
has stated that, he is suffering from inside pain and the Doctor
suggested to take one month rest and he discharged on
17.10.2014 with an instruction for daily follow-up for his further
treatments. He has further stated that, he is still continuing
follow-up treatment and has spent huge amount towards the
medical treatment, nourishment, conveyance, etc., He has further
stated that, in spite of taking treatment, he was not recovered
from the injuries sustained in the accident and he was hale and
healthy before the accident and now he is unable to his regular
day to day activities and he cannot bear weight or lift things from
left hand and is still suffering from severe pain, swelling
tenderness, etc., and he is completely depending upon others for
his day to day activities and the injuries sustained in the accident
have terribly affected his future life. He has further stated that,
prior to the date of accident, he was running his own Hardware
business in the name of the Susheela Glass, in Luxmipura Cross,
Bangalore and he was earning Rupees 50,000/- and he is only
earning member in his family and the entire family depends upon
the earnings of his work and due to the injuries sustained in the
accident, he was taken on total rest for more than 4 months and
hence, he was unable to attend his work, resulted in loss of
earning and earning capacity and put to great financial hardship.
SCCH-7 28 M.V.C.No.5300/2014
C/W M.V.C.No.5301/2014
28. The Petitioner has produced Ex.P.7 Medical Bills 2 in
numbers, which is amounting of Rupees 793/-.
29. While answering Issue No.1, this Tribunal has already
observed and come to the conclusion that, in the said road traffic
accident, the Petitioner had sustained one simple injury, i.e.,
abrasion over right leg and left knee and lend hand and he took
treatment as an outpatient at People Tree Hospital on 17.10.2014
itself.
30. But, only based on the said oral evidence of P.W.1
coupled with the contents of Ex.P.3 Wound Certificate and also
production Ex.P.7 Medical Bills, it cannot be believed and accept
the case made out by the Petitioner in respect of the difficulties
and disability suffering by him due to the said accidental injuries
as stated by him in his examination-in-chief, as, except Ex.P.7
Medical Bills and Ex.P.3 Wound Certificate, the Petitioner has not
produced any other medical documents to show that, even after
17.10.2014, he took follow-up treatment to the said accidental
injuries regularly as per the advise of the treated Doctor and he
has also taken bed rest for more than 4 months from the date of
accident. Further, the Petitioner has not examined the treated
Doctor or the competent Doctor to consider the said difficulties
and disability, which is alleged to have been suffering by him due
to the said accidental injuries. Even, the Petitioner has not
produced the disability certificate issued either by the treated
Doctor or competent Doctor. Further, Ex.P.3 Wound Certificate
clearly disclosed that, in the said road traffic accident, the
SCCH-7 29 M.V.C.No.5300/2014
C/W M.V.C.No.5301/2014
Petitioner had only sustained simple injury, i.e., abrasion over
right leg and left knee and left hand. Further, the Petitioner has
not produced any authenticated documents to consider his age,
avocation and income at the time of accident. The P.W.1 in his
cross-examination has clearly stated that, he is doing a business
of plywood under the name of Susheela and the licence relating to
the said shop is standing in his name and since 20 months, the
said shop is running by him and now the said shop is situated at
Kumaraswamy Layout and now the income is more than Rupees
50,000/-. From this, it is made crystal clear that, even after the
accident, the Petitioner has continued his avocation without
having difficulty and disability and getting more income. He has
further clearly stated that, in the alleged accident, he had
sustained only simple injury and since, he had only sustained
simple injuries in the alleged accident and the said simple injury
is already recovered, now he is not suffering any difficulties as
stated by him in the affidavit and he had closed his shop only for
9-10 days after the accident. From the said evidence of P.W.1, it is
further made crystal clear that, due to the said accidental injury,
the Petitioner is not suffering from any difficulties and disability
and he has continued his same business without any disturbance
after recovery from the said simple injury and now getting more
income. Therefore, the Petitioner is not entitled for compensation
under differing heads in respect of the said injuries sustained by
him in the said road traffic accident.
31. However, in the said road traffic accident, the
Petitioner had sustained one simple injury, i.e., abrasion over
SCCH-7 30 M.V.C.No.5300/2014
C/W M.V.C.No.5301/2014
right leg and left knee and left hand and he took treatment to the
said accidental injury as an outpatient at People Tree Hospital and
he has produced Ex.P.7 Medical Bills, the Petitioner is entitled for
global compensation. By considering the nature of injury and the
treatment taken as an outpatient to the said accidental injury at
People Tree Hospital as shown in Ex.P.3 Wound Certificate, this
Tribunal feels that, it is just, proper and necessary to award global
compensation of Rupees 20,000/-, which is reasonable, fare and
acceptable one. Hence, the Petitioner is entitled for global
compensation of Rupees 20,000/-.
32. Out of Ex.P.7 Medical Bills, Serial No.1, which is
amounting of Rupees 59/- is standing in the name of the
Petitioner and Serial No.2, which is amounting of Rupees 6,734/-
is not standing in the name of the Petitioner, but, it is in the name
of his wife, i.e., Petitioner in M.V.C. No.5301/2014. Therefore, the
Serial No.1 amounting of Rupees 59 can only be taken into for
consideration, which is relating to the Petitioner. Hence, the
Petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rupees 59/- towards
actual medical expenses, which covered under Ex.P.7 Medical
Bills.
33. In all, the Petitioner is entitled for total compensation
of Rupees 20,059/- (Rupees 20,000/- + Rupees 59/-) along with
interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the above said sum from
the date of petition till payment.
SCCH-7 31 M.V.C.No.5300/2014
C/W M.V.C.No.5301/2014
34. ISSUE NO.2 IN M.V.C.NO.1212/2014 :- The P.W.2
has stated that, she is suffering from inside pain and the Doctor
suggested to take one month rest and she discharged on
17.10.2014 with an instruction for daily follow-up for her further
treatments. She has further stated that, she still continuing
follow-up treatment and has spent huge amount towards the
medical treatment, nourishment, conveyance, etc., She has
further stated that, in spite of taking treatment, she was not
recovered from the injuries sustained in the accident and she was
hale and healthy before the accident and now she is unable to do
her regular day to day activities and she cannot walk properly and
is still suffering from severe pain, swelling tenderness, etc., and
she is completely depending upon others for her day to day
activities and the injuries sustained in the accident have terribly
affected her future life. She has further stated that, prior to the
date of accident, she was working in Hardware business in the
name of the Susheela Glass and in Luxmipura Cross, Bangalore
and also a house wife and she was earning Rupees 15,000/- and
she is earning member in her family and their family depends
upon the earnings of her work and due to the injuries sustained in
the accident, she was taken on total rest for more than 4 months
and hence, she was unable to attend her work, resulted in loss of
earning and earning capacity and put to great financial hardship.
The Petitioner has produced Ex.P.9 Medical Bills 13 in numbers,
which is amounting of Rupees 6,575/- and Ex.P.10 Medical
Prescriptions.
SCCH-7 32 M.V.C.No.5300/2014
C/W M.V.C.No.5301/2014
35. While answering Issue No.1, this Tribunal has already
observed and come to the conclusion that, in the said road traffic
accident, the Petitioner had sustained one grievous injury and one
simple injury, i.e., CLW over left foot over 2nd toe fracture and
multiple abrasion over left foot and she took treatment as an
outpatient at People Tree Hospital on 17.10.2014 itself.
36. But, only based on the said oral evidence of P.W.1
coupled with the contents of Ex.P.8 Wound Certificate and also
produced Ex.P.9 Medical Bills, it cannot be believed and accept
the case made out by the Petitioner in respect of the difficulties
and disabilities suffering by her due to the said accidental injuries
as stated by her in the examination-in-chief, as, except Ex.P.9
Medical Bills and Ex.P.8 Wound Certificate, the Petitioner has not
produced any other medical documents to show that, even after
17.10.2014, she took follow-up treatment to the said accidental
injuries as per the advise of the treated Doctor and she has also
taken bed rest for more than 4 months. Further, the Petitioner has
not examined the treated or the competent Doctor to consider the
said difficulties and disability, which is alleged to have been
suffering by her due to the said accidental injuries. Even, the
Petitioner has not produced the disability certificate issued either
by the treated Doctor or the competent Doctor. Further, Ex.P.8
Wound Certificate clearly disclosed that, in the said road traffic
accident, the Petitioner had sustained one grievous injury and one
simple injury, i.e., CLW over left foot over 2nd toe fracture and
multiple abrasions over left foot. Further, the P.W.2 in her cross-
examination has clearly stated that, at the time of accident, she
SCCH-7 33 M.V.C.No.5300/2014
C/W M.V.C.No.5301/2014
was a housewife and now also she is housewife and she has not
produced any documents to show that, at the time of accident,
she was working in Hardware in the name of Susheela Glass and
she was earning Rupees 15,000/- per month. Therefore, the
Petitioner is not entitled for compensation under different heads in
respect of the said injuries sustained by her in the said road traffic
accident.
37. However, in the said road traffic accident, the
Petitioner had sustained one grievous injury and one simple
injury, i.e., CLW over left foot over 2nd toe fracture and multiple
abrasions over left foot and she took treatment as an outpatient at
People Tree Hospital and he has produced Ex.P.9 Medical Bills,
the Petitioner is entitled for global compensation. By considering
the nature of injuries and the treatment taken as an outpatient to
the said accidental injuries at People Tree Hospital as shown in
Ex.P.8 Wound Certificate, this Tribunal feels that, it is just, proper
and necessary to award global compensation of Rupees 50,000/-,
which is reasonable, fare and acceptable one. Hence, the
Petitioner is entitled for global compensation of Rupees 50,000/-.
38. Out of Ex.P.9 Medical Bills, Serial No.3 amounting of
Rupees 500/- is relating to the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.5300/2014,
who is the husband of the present Petitioner, which is also in
respect of the MLC amount. Therefore, the said amount of Rupees
500/-, which covered under Serial No.3 has to be deducted in the
total amount of Rupees 6,575/-, which covered under Ex.P.9
Medical Bills. After deduction of the said amount of Rupees 500/-
SCCH-7 34 M.V.C.No.5300/2014
C/W M.V.C.No.5301/2014
in the amount of Rupees 6,575/-, the balance comes to Rupees
6,075/-. Hence, the amount of Rupees 6,075/- is only taken into
for consideration of Ex.P.9 Medical Bills.
39. In all, the Petitioner is entitled for total compensation
of Rupees 56,075/- (Rupees 50,000/- + Rupees 6,075/-) along
with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the above said sum
from the date of petition till payment.
40. While answering Issue No.1, this Tribunal has already
come to the conclusion that, the entire negligence is on the part of
the driver of the offending Canter bearing Registration No.KA-51-
A-6445 in the commission of the said road traffic accident and
there was no negligence on the part of the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.5300/2014 in riding his Motor Cycle bearing
Registration No.KA-05-JF-424 in the commission of the said road
traffic accident and the offending Canter bearing Registration
No.KA-51-A-6445 as well as its driver, are very much involved in
the said road traffic accident, wherein, the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.5300/2014 had sustained one simple injury and the
Petitioner in M.V.C.No.5301/2014 had sustained one grievous
injury and one simple injury.
41. It is clearly mentioned by both the Petitioners in the
cause title of both the petitions that, the Respondent No.2 is an
Owner of the Canter bearing Registration No.KA-51-A-6445. The
Respondent No.1 in its written statement has stated that, It has
issued the policy in respect of the vehicle bearing Registration
SCCH-7 35 M.V.C.No.5300/2014
C/W M.V.C.No.5301/2014
No.KA-05-A-6445, but, the original copy of the policy is in the
possession and control of the Respondent No.2 and the liability of
it is limited to the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance
issued, which is in accordance with the provisions of Motor
Vehicles Act. The R.W.3, who is the Legal Manager of the
Respondent No.1, has stated in his examination-in-chief that, the
Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-51-A-6445 is insured with their
Insurance Company and the said policy is valid as on the date of
accident. The Respondent No.1 has produced Ex.R.3 Insurance
Policy relating to the Canter bearing Registration No.KA-51-A-
6445. From this material evidence, it is made crystal clear that, at
the time of accident, the Respondent No.1 was an Insurer and the
Respondent No.2 was a R.C. Owner of the Canter bearing
Registration No.KA-51-A-6445 and its Insurance Policy was valid,
which covers the date of accident.
42. But, based on the same, it cannot be said and come to
the conclusion that, both the Respondents, i.e., Insurer and R.C.
Owner of the offending Canter bearing Registration No.KA-51-A-
6445, respectively, are jointly and severally liable to pay the above
said compensation and interest to both the Petitioners as ordered,
as, in Ex.P.6 Charge Sheet, it is clearly alleged by the Investigating
Officer as against the driver of the offending Canter bearing
Registration No.KA-51-A-6445 that, at the time of accident, the
driver of the offending Canter was not having a valid and effective
driving licence to drive such class of offending Canter and the
Respondent No.2, who is a R.C. Owner of the offending Canter had
allowed the driver to drive without having a valid and effective
SCCH-7 36 M.V.C.No.5300/2014
C/W M.V.C.No.5301/2014
driving licence and as such, Section 3(1) R/w Section 181 of M.V.
Act is inserted along with Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC and
Section 5 R/w Section 180 of M.V. Act as against the driver and
R.C. Owner, i.e., the Respondent No.2 of the said offending
Canter. Further, the Respondent No.2 has examined the
Superintendent, RTO, Electronic City, Bangalore, as R.W.1, who
has stated in his evidence that, in their Office, as per the records
available, they have not issued the driving licence in favour of
Vijay Kumar. C. S/o. Munirathnam, i.e., driver, at the time of
accident. Further, the Respondent No.1 has also examined the
Investigating Officer as R.W.2, who by producing Ex.R.2 True copy
of Driving Licence relating to Chirnam Vijaya Kumar. C., has
stated that, as against Vijaykumar and Nagaraj, he has filed a
Charge Sheet and during the course of investigation, he has
issued notice under Section 133 of M.V. Act to the Owner of the
offending Eicher Canter, namely, Nagaraj and the said Owner
Nagaraj has issued reply by stating that, all the vehicular
documents relating to the offending Eicher Canter are valid, but,
the driver Vijaykumar is not having a valid D.L., at the time of
accident. He has further clearly stated that, at the time of
accident, as per Ex.R.2 D.L., the said Chirnam Vijay Kumar. C., is
not authorized to drive the offending Eicher Canter and hence, he
has mentioned the same in the Charge Sheet. From the said
material evidence of R.W.1 and R.W.2 and also the contents of
Ex.R.2, it is made crystal clear that, the driver of the offending
Canter was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive
such class of offending Canter. It is clearly mentioned in Ex.R.3
Insurance Policy under driver clause that, "any person including
SCCH-7 37 M.V.C.No.5300/2014
C/W M.V.C.No.5301/2014
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
when not used for the transport of goods at the time of accident
and that, such a person satisfied the requirements of Rule 3 of the
Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989". Further, though the notice
was duly served on the Respondent No.2 through paper
publication, he was remained absent and hence, he was placed as
exparte. The non-appearance of the Respondent No.2 in these
petitions clearly implies that, he has indirectly admitted that, the
driver of the offending Canter bearing Registration No.KA-51-A-
6445 was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive
such class of offending Canter at the time of accident. From this,
it is made crystal clear that, the Respondent No.2,who is the R.C.
Owner of the offending Canter bearing Registration No.KA-51-A-
6445 has violated the terms and conditions of the admitted Ex.R.3
Insurance Policy. Hence, the Respondent No.1, who is an Insurer
of the offending Canter, is not liable to indemnify the Respondent
No.2. Since, the Respondent No.2 is a R.C. Owner of the offending
Canter bearing Registration No.KA-51-A-6445, he alone is liable to
pay the above said compensation and interest to both the
Petitioners as ordered. Hence, the petitions filed by both the
Petitioners as against the Respondent No.1 is liable to be
dismissed and it is liable to be allowed as against the Respondent
No.2. Hence, Issue No.2 in M.V.C.No.5300/2014 and
M.V.C.No.5301/2014 are answered accordingly.
SCCH-7 38 M.V.C.No.5300/2014
C/W M.V.C.No.5301/2014
43. ISSUE NO.3 IN M.V.C.No.5300/2014 :- 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, 1989, is hereby partly allowed with costs as against the Respondent No.2.
The petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, is hereby dismissed as against the Respondent No.1 without costs.
The Petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rupees 20,059/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of payment, from the Respondent No.2.
The Respondent No.2 shall deposit the said compensation and interest in this Tribunal, within one month from the date of this Order.
SCCH-7 39 M.V.C.No.5300/2014
C/W M.V.C.No.5301/2014
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/-.
Original copy of the Judgment shall be kept in M.V.C.No.5300/2014 and the copy of the same shall be kept in M.V.C.No.5301/2014.
Draw award accordingly.
72. ISSUE NO.3 IN M.V.C.NO.5301/2014 :- 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, 1989, is hereby partly allowed with costs as against the Respondent No.2.
SCCH-7 40 M.V.C.No.5300/2014C/W M.V.C.No.5301/2014 The petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, is hereby dismissed as against the Respondent No.1 without costs.
The Petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rupees 56,075/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of payment, from the Respondent No.2.
The Respondent No.2 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/-.
Original copy of the Judgment shall be kept in M.V.C.No.5300/2014 SCCH-7 41 M.V.C.No.5300/2014 C/W M.V.C.No.5301/2014 and the copy of the same shall be kept in M.V.C.No.5301/2014.
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 2nd day of February, 2017.) (INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR) IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE PETITIONERS :-
P.W.1 : Sri. Vishwanath
P.W.2 : Smt. Nancy
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED BY THE PETITIONERS :-
Ex.P.1 : True Copy of FIR
Ex.P.2 : True Copy of Complaint
Ex.P.3 : True Copy of Wound Certificate
Ex.P.4 : True Copy of Spot Panchanama
Ex.P.5 : True Copy of Spot Hand Sketch
Ex.P.6 : True copy of Charge Sheet
Ex.P.7 : Medical Bills (2 in nos.)
Ex.P.8 : True copy of Wound Certificate
Ex.P.9 : Medical Bills (13 in nos.)
Ex.P.10 : Medical Prescriptions (9 in nos.)
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE RESPONDENTS :-
SCCH-7 42 M.V.C.No.5300/2014C/W M.V.C.No.5301/2014 R.W.1 : D.M. Jagadeesh R.W.2 : Gurappa. G. Ganger R.W.3 : Shobha. K.A. DOCUMENTS MARKED BY THE RESPONDENTS :-
Ex.R.1 : Authorization Letter dated 07.05.2016 Ex.R.2 : True copy of D.L. relating to Chirnam Vijaya Kumar. C. 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.