Bangalore District Court
Sri.Dasegowda vs Puttaswamy S.G on 22 November, 2022
KABC020123792013
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT BENGALURU.
(SCCH24)
DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022
Present: Miss.B.T.ANNAPOORNESHWARI
B.A., L.L.B., L.L.M.
C/c XXII ADDL., SCJ & ACMM,
MEMBER MACT,
BENGALURU.
MVC NO.5919/2013
PETITIONER/S Sri.Dasegowda,
S/o Venkatachalaiah,
Abed about 33 years
Residing at Heruru village,
Heruru Post,
Kunigal Taluk,
Tumkur District.
And also at:
C/o Krishnappa,
No.33, 6th Cross,
7th Main Road, R.P.C. Layout,
Vijayanagar,Bengaluru.
(By Sri.C.C.Harish and
Smt.Suma Advocates.)
MVC.5919/2013
2 SCCH24
V/s
RESPONDENT/S : 1. Puttaswamy S.G.,
S/o Gulaiah,
No.175, Heruru Village and Post,
Kunigal Taluk,
Tumkur District,
(R.C.Owner of the Motorcycle
bearing Reg.No.KA06EJ4455).
(Exparte)
2. United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Regional Office,
5th Floor, Krushi Bhavana,
Nrupathunga Road,
Hudson Circle,
Bengaluru560027.
(Policy No.071483/31/12/01/00001136
Valid from 12.02.2013 to 11.02.2014)
(By Sri.K.Nagarajaiah,
Advocate.)
JUDGMENT
The Petitioner has filed this petition under Sec.166 of the M.V. Act, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident dated 18.08.2013.
MVC.5919/2013 3 SCCH24
2. The case of the Petitioner in brief is that, On 18.08.2013 at about 10.30 a.m., the petitioner was proceeding in a motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA06EJ4455 as a pillion rider which was ridden by its rider on Maddur road in a rash and negligent manner, endangering to human life, without observing any traffic rules, when they reached in front of LIC office, due to negligence he lost control and dashed against the Jeep bearing Reg.No.KEK 2009, consequent he fell down and sustained grievous injuries and immediately shifted to Kunigal Government Hospital, wherein first aid was given then he was referred to AIMS Hospital, B.G.Nagar, wherein he was treated as an inpatient from 18.08.2013 to 30.09.2013, during the course of treatment xrays were taken, which revealed Avulsion fracture of right tibia knee with ACL, PCL right knee dislocation (IDK) MCL Avulsion with medial meniscalavalsion and undergone surgery i.e., open MVC.5919/2013 4 SCCH24 reduction with internal fixation and discharged with an advise, as per the advice of the doctors, he is still continuing following up treatment and so far spent more than Rs.1,60,000/ towards medical, conveyance, nourishment and other incidental charges, etc.. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he was getting unbearable pain often and he was completely bed ridden, cannot walk, stand, sit, squat on floor, cannot use Indian toilet cannot lift or carry weight, cannot driver any vehicle and undergoing deep mental shock, pain and sufferings.
3. The petitioner further stated that, at the time of accident he was hale and healthy and was working as motor winder and earning Rs.15,000/ per month, with the said earnings he was maintaining his family members. Due to the accidental injuries he could not attend his work resulted in loss of earnings and earning capacity and put MVC.5919/2013 5 SCCH24 to great financial hardship. The Kunigal Town police have registered a case in Crime No.308/2013, after investigation police have charge sheeted the rider of the motor cycle, punishable u/Sec.279 and 338 of IPC. The 1st respondent being the RC owner and the 2nd respondent is the insurer of the offending Vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to him.
4. In response to service of notice issued by this court/Tribunal, the Respondent No.2 have appeared and filed written statement. In spite of due service of summons, the Respondent No.1 did not appear, hence placed exparte.
5. The respondent No.2 in its written statement have denied the case of the petitioner as false, admitted issuance of policy but subject to terms and conditions and submitted that there is non compliance of Section 134(c) and Section 158(6) of M.V. Act. Further submitted that the MVC.5919/2013 6 SCCH24 rider of the motorcycle was not holding valid and effective DL to drive the same and hence there is breach of policy conditions and the above petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties the insurer of Jeep bearing Reg.No.KEK 2009 which had contributed negligence to the alleged accident to an extent of 100%. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition against them.
6. On the basis of the above pleadings the following issues are framed:
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he has sustained grievous injuries in the road traffic accident that occurred on 18.08.2013 at about 10.30 a.m, while proceeding as a pillion rider on Motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA06EJ4455 on Maddur road, in front of LIC Office, Kunigal Town, Tumkur due to rash and negligent riding of the said motor cycle by its rider ?
2. Whether the respondent No.2 proves that this Tribunal has no Territorial Jurisdiction to try this petition ?
MVC.5919/2013
7 SCCH24
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation as claimed ? If so, to what amount and from whom?
4. What order or Award?
7. The petitioner in order to prove his case, he has examined himself as PW.1 and produced documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.151 and P162. Dr.Ramachandra Orthopedic surgeon at Bowring and Lady curzon Hospital is got examined as PW.2 and produced documents as per Exs.P.152 to P156. Sri.Govindharaju Medical record Technician, is examined as PW.3 and produced documents as per Exs.P157 to P.161 and closed his side. On the other side the respondent No.2 has examined its Administrative officer as RW.1 and produced documents as per Exs.R.1 to R.4.
8. After hearing the arguments this Tribunal dismissed the petition by Judgment dated 31.12.2014.
MVC.5919/2013 8 SCCH24 Aggrieved by the judgment the petitioner preferred appeal in M.F.A.No:1894/2015(MV), in which the Hon'ble High Court vide judgment dated 28.02.2020 at para 7 to 9 observed as under;
"7. I have gone through Ex.P.1FIR and Ex.P.2 complaint given by one Ziyaulla, who was inmate of the jeep. The Police have registered the offence under Sections 279 and 337 r/w Section 187 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act against the rider of the motor cycle. After thorough investigation, the police have filed a charge sheet as per Ex.P.7 against the rider of the motorcycle. The Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition and given a finding that the rider of the motor cycle and the person, who brought the claimant to the Hospital has not been examined. The claimant has not examined the investigating officer to prove his complaint and it is also very clear that the accident has occurred between the motor cycle and jeep. The complaint has been given by inmate of the jeep and claimant has not examined either the driver of the jeep or the complainant.
8.Taking into consideration all these aspects, in the interest of justice, I am of the opinion that matter requires to be remanded back for reconsideration after giving MVC.5919/2013 9 SCCH24 opportunities to the claimant to examine the rider of the motorcycle, the complaint, investigating officer, also person who took the claimant to the hospital and another persons, if so required.
9. Hence, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and award dated 31.12.2014 passed by MACT, Bangalore in MVC No.5919/2013 is set aside. Matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration with liberty to examine the necessary parties after giving opportunities to the parties........ ....."
9. With the above observation the Hon'ble H.C. remanded the matter to this Tribunal with a direction to dispose the appeal as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law without being influenced by any observations made by the Tribunal in the earlier judgment and award and also observations made by this Court and kept open all the contentions of the parties.
MVC.5919/2013 10 SCCH24
10. After remand of the case, the petitioner has got examined Sri.Narasimhmurthy rider of the motorcycle as PW.3 and also got examined Sri.Sadashivaiah Retired ASI, Kunigal P.S., as PW.4 and did not produce any documents and closed his side. On the other side, the respondent No.2 has not lead any additional evidence on their behalf.
11. Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the materials on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed written arguments and relied upon the following decisions: 1) ILR 2003 KAR 493: Mallamma Vs. Balaji & Ors., 2) AIR 1980 SC 1354 :N.K.V Bros (p) Ltd., Vs. M.Karumai Ammal & Ors., 3) 2007 (4) KCCR 2810 :
M/s.Mahesh Centre & Anr., Vs. People Charity Fund & Anr.,
4) 2011 4 Sc 693: Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan & Ors., 5) AIR 2011 SC 1226: Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan & Ors., 6) 2016 ACJ 1976: Sneha Saularam Bankar & Ors., Vs. Hanumant MVC.5919/2013 11 SCCH24 Vaman Pednekar & Anr., 7) MFA 5879/2012 :
Smt.Girijamma Vs. Sri.M.Veluswamy & Anr..
12. My findings on the above issues are as follows:
Issue No.1: In the negative, Issue No.2: Does not survive for consideration, Issue No.3: In the negative, Issue No.4: As per the final order, for the following;
REASONS
13. Issue No.1: The Petitioner in order to prove that the accident was occurred due to the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA06EJ4455 has examined himself as PW.1 and produced 6 documents as per Exs.P.1 to 5 and P7. He has specifically stated in his evidence that, on 18.08.2013 at about 10.30 a.m., he was proceeding in a motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA06EJ4455 as a pillion rider, the same was ridden by its rider on MVC.5919/2013 12 SCCH24 Maddur road in a rash and negligent manner endangering to human life, without observing any traffic rules, when they reached in front of LIC office, due to negligence of the rider, he lost control and dashed against the Jeep bearing Reg.No.KEK2009, consequent he fell down and sustained grievous injuries and caused accident. The respondent No.2 have denied the case of the petitioner and contended that the rider of the said motorcycle was not having valid and effective DL as on the date of accident and the petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. In the cross examination of PW.1 it is brought out that he cannot say as to in how much speed the said bike was being ridden, the road was of 60 feet width, the rider of the bike riding his bike on the left side of the road, the jeep was going in high speed, he did not see the number of the said jeep, he also not seen whether the said jeep got damages or not, after 10 days he lodged the first information before the police, MVC.5919/2013 13 SCCH24 inmates of the jeep did not lodge any first information before police, the rider of the bike namely Narsimha also did not lodge any first information, from the accident spot somebody took him to the hospital in an auto to whom he can examine, Narsimha came to hospital alongwith him, the chargesheet is filed against the rider of the bike Narsimha who is his friend.
14. The PW.3 has produced MLC register extract and out patient record. In his crossexamination nothing worth is elicited.
15. The PW.3/rider of the bike is examined (ought to have been numbered as PW.4 but by oversight the witness is numbered as PW.3 again) who deposed that he was riding the motorcycle bearing Reg.No:KA06EJ4455 slowly and cautiously by observing the traffic rules and regulations while so proceeding when reached LIC office at MVC.5919/2013 14 SCCH24 that time he lost control and suddenly dashed against Jeep bearing Reg.No:KEK2009 due to which the pillion rider fell down and sustained injuries and immediately injured petitioner was shifted to nearby Kunigal Govt. Hospital and the driver of jeep Ziyaulla lodged the complaint on 18.8.2013 against him before the Kunigal police station. In the crossexamination it is elicited that, he has DL but he cannot produce, on that day he was riding the bike at 25 30 km speed, jeep was going ahead him, the said road may be of 25 feet in width, he was proceeding on the left side, the public shifted him and the pillion rider to the Kunigal Govt. Hospital.
16. The PW.4 I.O. has deposed that after investigation he filed the chargesheet. In the crossexamination it is elicited that on 30.8.2013 he seized the vehicle from the spot, they only seized jeep from the spot and not seized the bike and they released the jeep on indemnity bond.
MVC.5919/2013 15 SCCH24
17. The respondent No.2 has got examined its official as RW.1 in support of its defence who deposed reiterating the contentions taken in the written statement mainly focusing on the false implication of the insured vehicle and produced the copy of notice issued to the owner of the vehicle and FIR. In the crossexamination it is elicited that in the MVA report there is mention about damages to the both vehicles.
18. Even after observation made by the Hon'ble HC that after remand the petitioner to examine the ride of the motorcycle, the complainant, Investigating Officer, also the person who took the claimant to the hospital, even then the petitioner has not made any efforts to examine the person who took him to the hospital though he clearly states in his evidence that he could examine the said person and also not examined the complainant for the reasons best known MVC.5919/2013 16 SCCH24 to him. The Ex.P.2 is the first information lodged on 30.8.2013 by the owner of the jeep in respect of the accident took place on 18.8.2013 stating that when himself and the jeep driver Sami were proceeding in his jeep bearing No:KEK2009 on 18.8.2013 at 10.45 a.m. in the Kunigal town, Madduru road, infront of old LIC office, in the left side of the road at that time the bike came from Kunigal town towards Huliyurudurga alongwith a pillion rider in rash and negligent manner and dashed to their jeep from back side, immediately he went and saw that the rider got simple injuries and the pillion rider got grievous injury to his right leg and they immediately shifted the injured to the Kunigal Govt. Hospital and thereafter shifted Dasegowda to Adichunchanagiri hospital and as he went to Bengaluru for his personal work and hence the delay in lodging the first information. If at all the accident was occurred as alleged by the petitioner then why the MVC.5919/2013 17 SCCH24 rider/PW.3/Narsimhamurthy did not lodge the first information immediately and the first informant also could have lodged the first information immediately after the accident even if considered that he was out of station then also the driver of the jeep could have lodged the first information immediately and hence the delay offered/explained in lodging the first information is not satisfactory and acceptable one.
19. The Ex.P.5 shows that the two wheeler got damages to the front side and the jeep had no damages. If at all the bike hit the jeep from the back side then definitely the jeep should have got damages to its back side and absence of any damages to the said jeep points out that the accident did not occur as claimed or alleged by the petitioner. As per the evidence of PW.1 somebody took him to the hospital but as per the statement of first informant they took the injured to the hospital but the Ex.P.6/wound certificate MVC.5919/2013 18 SCCH24 clearly shows that the petitioner was shifted to the hospital by his friend Puttaswamy but not the first informant or somebody else which itself falsifies the statement of the PW.1 and the first informant. Admittedly the rider of the bike is the friend of the petitioner and if at all he was present on that day and was riding the bike then definitely he would have shifted the petitioner to the hospital and lodged the first information and his name would have been find place in the wound certificate which is not the case in the present case of the petitioner. If at all the rider/PW.3 lost control over the bike and hit the jeep from the back side then definitely there was every possibility that the rider could have sustained severe injuries than the pillion rider/petitioner but it is also not the case in the case of the petitioner but as per the case of the petitioner and evidence of PW.3 there is no mention that the rider of bike sustained any injuries and he also did not take any treatment and if MVC.5919/2013 19 SCCH24 at all both were shifted to hospital then definitely there will be medical record/OPD record and wound certificate of the PW.3/rider also but it is not the case in the present case. As per the evidence of PW.3 the driver Ziyaulla did lodge the first information but as per Ex.P.2/Ziyaulla mentioned as owner of the jeep and he did lodge the first information. In Ex.P.2 there is insertion of 'and jeep driver Sami' in the first line but there is no any initial made to the said insertion by the first informant or the SHO. These all above discrepancies in documents and contrary evidence clearly points out that the accident did not occur as alleged by the petitioner.
20. Further, the Ex.P.6/wound certificate shows that one Puttaswamy friend of the petitioner admitted the petitioner to the hospital on 18.8.2013 at 11.a.m. with the alleged history of RTA near Madduru road on 18.8.2013 at 10.45 a.m.. If at all the PW.3 did cause the accused then MVC.5919/2013 20 SCCH24 there was no hurdle for mentioning the bike number in it. The Ex.P.12 Out patient receipt issued by Kunigal Govt. Hospital shows that the patient brought with 'alleged history of RTA near Maddur road 10 minutes ago; patient was in a two wheeler colluded with an 4 wheeler'. Even in this document also there is no mention about the bike number and also the alleged jeep number which could have been mentioned when the manner of accident and the involvement of the vehicles was clear but it appears that as the accident did not occurred as claimed and hence there was not any mention of the vehicle numbers. Further, the Ex.P.12 clearly shows that two colluded with an four wheeler and from this it is clear that there was head on collusion between the bike and a four wheeler and there is clear mention that patient was in a two wheeler and not mentioned as patient was a pillion rider and further it makes clear that the petitioner was rider of the bike on that MVC.5919/2013 21 SCCH24 day and was colluded with an unknown four wheeler and hence there is no specific mention about the vehicle numbers or nature of vehicle i.e. jeep and there is also no mention that patient was pillion rider.
21. The Ex.P.158/MLC register extract of Adhichunchanagiri hospital, wherein it is mentioned that the patient admitted on 18.8.2013 at 1.20 p.m. brought by Puttaswamy. If at the first informant/Ziyaulla did shifted the injured/petitioner to the hospital then definitely his name was appearing in the Ex.P.158 and as his name is not mentioned in the said MLC/Accident register extract and hence it is crystal clear that the first informant or the PW.3 did not shift the petitioner to the hospitals but one Puttaswamy friend of the petitioner shifted him to the hospitals. Further the Ex.P.158 shows the history as, "H/o RTA due to collusion between the motor bike and car on 18.8.2013 at 10.30 a.m. in Kunigal town and it further MVC.5919/2013 22 SCCH24 makes it clear that the accident was head on collusion between the bike and the one car and there was no involvement of jeep at all and the petitioner was not the pillion rider. The Ex.P.159/inpatient record pertaining to the petitioner maintained by the Adichunchanagiri Hospital, in which in the clinical history sheet in the column chief complaint it is clearly mentioned as 'case seen by Dr.V.Gopya Naik. Informant patient H/o Head on collusion between motorcycle and a car while patient was riding the motorcycle at 10.30 a.m. today near Kunigal'. This history was written in an undisputed point of time that too immediately after the accident at the time of admission of the petitioner to the hospital and prior to the police documents coming into existence and hence the said medical document has got presumptive value than the police documents which came into existence thereafter. When the above history of accident is considered it is MVC.5919/2013 23 SCCH24 crystal clear that the petitioner while riding the bike got accident by head on collusion with a car and sustained injuries but by suppressing the said real facts the false story is created by the petitioner colluding with the concerned only to get wrongful gain of compensation. With the above discussion I am of th view that the decisions relied by the counsel for the petitioner are not applicable as the facts and circumstances of those cases and this case are different.
22. As per the discussion made above the facts of alleged accident have been twisted and the insured vehicle has been fixed for the reasons falsely implicated in this case. But even then in order to get compensation the false first information is filed with the active collusion of the concerned and created police documents contrary to the medical documents. The I.O. has also filed chargesheet for MVC.5919/2013 24 SCCH24 the reasons and best interest what he had in the petitioner to support the petitioner to get compensation.
23. Further, as per settled law that the pleading guilty by the accused does not bear any consequences on the claim petition as the documents produced by the claimant which themselves falsifies the case of claimants and contrary to their case. On appreciating the evidence on record it is clear that the respondent No.2 has proved its defence that there is false implication of the insured vehicle.
24. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in many cases that the doctor would not mention any thing which is irrelevant in the medical documents and would not take signature on document which is incorrect and courts have to consider the contents mentioned therein. Therefore, this court has to consider the recitals of wound certificate, case sheet and MLC. Further, at this point it is relevant to MVC.5919/2013 25 SCCH24 mention the decision of our own Hon'ble High Court report in "ILR 2014 KAR 3336 in the case of Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Smt.Kempamma and others" which is aptly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
25. Therefore, as per the discussions made above and appreciation of evidence the present case is a case false claim on the basis of created documents is to be held by this Tribunal and the same is proved by the respondent No.2 in support of their defence. Under these circumstances, this Tribunal is of the opinion that, the petitioner has failed to prove that the accident was due to the rash and negligence of the rider of alleged offending vehicle. Accordingly issue No.1 is held in the negative.
MVC.5919/2013 26 SCCH24
26. Issue No.2: It is settled law that the MVC petitions can be filed where the insurance company carries on its business. The Hon'ble SC in Mantoo Sarkar Vs. Oriental insurance company Ltd. And Ors., in Civil Appeal No.7318/2007 held that the claim petition can be filed anywhere where the insurance company carries its business. Therefore, this issue does not survive for consideration.
27. Issue No.3: While discussing the above issue No.1, this Tribunal has already come to the conclusion that the Petitioner has failed to prove that, the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the alleged offending vehicle. Therefore, when the Petitioner has failed to the prove the very negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and it is clearly established by the insurance company that the MVC.5919/2013 27 SCCH24 insured vehicle has been falsely implicated and hence, the question of awarding compensation and determining the quantum of compensation does not arise for consideration at all. Accordingly, Issue No.3 is held in the negative.
28. Issue No.4: For the reasons and discussions made above and finding to the above issues this Tribunal proceeds to pass the following: ORDER The petition filed by the Petitioner U/Sec.166 of IMV Act is dismissed.
No order as to cost.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Typed to my dictation directly on the computer by the Stenographer, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 22nd day of November 2022).
(B.T.Annapoorneshwari) C/c XXII Addl. SCJ & ACMM, Bangalore.
MVC.5919/2013 28 SCCH24 ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined for petitioner:
P.W.1 Sri.Dasegowda P.W.2 Dr.Ramachandra P.W.3 Sri.Govindaraju P.W.3 Sri. Narasimhmurthy (By oversight again number as PW.3 only) P.W.4 Sri.Sadashivaiah
List of Documents marked for Petitioner:
Ex.P.1 True copy of First Information Report.
Ex.P.2 True copy of Complaint.
Ex.P.3 True copy of Spot Mahazar.
Ex.P.4 True copy of Seizer Mahazar.
Ex.P.5 True copy of IMV Report.
Ex.P.6 True copy of Wound Certificate.
Ex.P.7 True copy of Charge Sheet.
Ex.P.8 Discharge Summary.
Ex.P.9 Original Rental Agreement.
Ex.P.10 Original Rental Agreement
dt:11.12.2013
Ex.P.11 Syndicate Bank Pass Book.
Ex.P.12 OPD Card.
MVC.5919/2013
29 SCCH24
Ex.P.13 96 Medical Bills
to 108
Ex.P.109 43 Medical Prescriptions.
to 151
Ex.P.152 OPD Slip
Ex.P.153 4 MRI Scan Films with Reports.
to 156
Ex.P.157 Authorization letter of P.W.3.
Ex.P.158 MLC Register Extract.
Ex.P.159 Inpatient Record.
Ex.P.160 2 Xrays.
& 161
Ex.P.162 One Medical Bill
List of Witnesses examined for respondent/s:
R.W.1 Smt.R.U.Jayalakshmi List of documents exhibited for Respondent:
Ex.R.1 Authorization Letter of R.W.1 Ex.R.2 Notice issued to the owner of the vehicle Puttaswamy.
Ex.R.3 Copy of the First Information Report. Ex.R.4 Copy of Insurance Policy.
(B.T.Annapoorneshwari) C/c XXII Addl. SCJ & ACMM, Bangalore.
MVC.5919/2013 30 SCCH24 17.10.2022 For judgment by 21.10.2022 XXII ASCJ & ACMM 21.10.2022 For judgment by 15.11.2022 XXII ASCJ & ACMM 15.11.2022 For judgment by 22.11.2022 XXII ASCJ & ACMM 22.11.2022 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT VIDE SEPARATE ORDER The petition filed by the Petitioner U/Sec.166 of IMV Act is dismissed.
No order as to cost.
Draw decree accordingly.
(B.T.Annapoorneshwari) C/c XXII Addl. SCJ & ACMM, Bangalore.
MVC.5919/2013 31 SCCH24 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA: BANGALORE CITY (SCCH24) MVC NO.5919/2013 PETITIONER/S Sri.Dasegowda, S/o Venkatachalaiah, Abed about 33 years Residing at Heruru village, Heruru Post, Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District.
And also at:
C/o Krishnappa, No.33, 6th Cross, 7th Main Road, R.P.C. Layout, Vijayanagar,Bengaluru.
(By Sri.C.C.Harish and Smt.Suma Advocates.) V/s RESPONDENT/S : 1. Puttaswamy S.G., S/o Gulaiah, No.175, Heruru Village and Post, Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District, (R.C.Owner of the Motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA06EJ4455).
(Exparte) MVC.5919/2013
32 SCCH24
2. United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Regional Office, 5th Floor, Krushi Bhavana, Nrupathunga Road, Hudson Circle, Bengaluru560027.
(Policy No.071483/31/12/01/00001136 Valid from 12.02.2013 to 11.02.2014) (By Sri.K.Nagarajaiah, Advocate.) WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the Petitioner/s above named U/sec.166 of the M.V.C. Act, praying for the compensation of Rs.
(Rupees ) for the injuries sustained by the Petitioner/Death of in a Motor Accident by Vehicle No. MVC.5919/2013 33 SCCH24 WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up on for final disposal before Miss. B.T.Annapoorneshwari, C/c XXII Addl.Judge, Member, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for Petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. Advocate for Respondent.
ORDER The petition filed by the Petitioner U/Sec.166 of IMV Act is dismissed.
No order as to cost.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this 22 day of November 2022.
nd MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA BANGALORE.
MVC.5919/2013 34 SCCH24 By the __________________________________ Petitioner/s Respondent Court fee paid on petition 1000 Court fee paid on Powers 0000 Court fee paid on I.A. Process Pleaders Fee _________________________________ Total Rs.
_________________________________ Decree Drafted Scrutinised by MEMBER, M.A.C.T.METROPOLITAN:
BANGALORE Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR MVC.5919/2013
35 SCCH24