Bangalore District Court
Sri. S.Ganesh vs M/S. Bajaj Allianz Gen.Ins.Com.Ltd on 27 August, 2019
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL & V
ADDL. JUDGE SCCH-20, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.
Dated this the 27th day of August, 2019
Present: Smt. A.G.SHILPA, B.A., LL.B.,
V Addl. Small Causes Judge &
XXIV A.C.M.M., Member, M.A.C.T.,
Bengaluru.
MVC No: 444/2019
PETITIONER: Sri. S.Ganesh
S/o Shivakumar
Aged about 34 years,
Residing at No.9, 14th Cross,
Gouthamapuram
Bangalore - 560 008.
(By Pleader Sri.Narayanaswamy.V, Adv.)
-V/s-
RESPONDENTS: 1. M/s. Bajaj Allianz Gen.Ins.Com.Ltd
Golden heights, 4th floor, No.102
59th cross, 'C' 4th M-block,
Rajajinagar,
Bangalore - 10.
2. Sunil Dutt,
S/o Tripalsingh,
No.1, 1st floor, Jayalakshmi nilaya
SCCH-20 2 MVC No.444/2019
8/2, opp. Subramaniswamy temple
Subbannapalya,
Banaswadi,
Bengaluru - 560 033.
(R1-Pleader Sri.RSS, Adv.,)
R2- Pleader Sri.PMG, Adv.)
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed present petition U/sec 166 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation amount of Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained in a Road Traffic Accident along with interest and for cost.
2. The Factual matrix of the petitioner's case are that:
On 6.9.2016 at 1.30 AM, on NH-69, Gangavaram Mandalam, Palamanere, Bangalore, the petitioner was a passenger in the Car bearing No: KA-03-MA-9063 (Hereafter referred as Car) and the Car driver was very rash negligent and at high speed, he tried to over take the vehicle at front and dashed lorry bearing No: AP 16-TB- SCCH-20 3 MVC No.444/2019 8529, (Hereafter referred as Lorry), coming on opposite side, due to which, petitioner sustained grievous injury another passenger died at the spot.
Immediately petitioner was shifted Government Hospital, Palamner first aid was done, thereafter petitioner shifted CV Raman Nagar Govt Hospital, Bengaluru, thereafter petitioner was admitted as inpatient in Bengaluru Medical college and research center Bengaluru, the duty doctor was examined x-rays and scanning were done which reveals the facts mentioned in the wound/certificate/discharge certificate operation were done and offered necessary treatment and discharge with advise to take follow up treatment.
The petitioner was spent a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards the medical expenses conveyance and nourishment of food and other incidental charges. SCCH-20 4 MVC No.444/2019
Due to the injuries, the petitioner was not work not able to sit, stand, still, petitioner not continuous the job hence his income is loss.
The Gangavaram A.P. police have registered a case against car driver No: KA-03-MA-9063 in Crime No.99/2016 against the driver of Car for committing offences punishable under Section 279, 338 304(A) of IPC. Hence, it is prayed to allow this petition.
3. In pursuance of the claim petition, this court issued notice to respondent No.1 and 2. They have appeared through their respective pleaders and filed their written statement.
4. Brief averments of the written statement of the respondent No.1 is as follows:
The 1st respondent admitted for having issued policy bearing No.OG-17-1701-1801-00021361 in favour of the SCCH-20 5 MVC No.444/2019 2nd respondent insuring the driver of Car bearing Reg. No.KA-03-MA-9063 for the period 10.07.2016 to 9.7.2017. The respondent has denied all other averments made in the petition.
It is stated that as per section 134 (c) of MV Act 1988, it is mandatory duty of the insured-respondent No.2 herein to furnish the particulars of policy, date, time and place of accident, particulars of the injured and the name of the driver and particulars of driving license.
It is further submitted that as per section 158 (6) of MV Act 1988, it is mandatory duty of the concerned police station to forward all the relevant documents to the concerned insurer within 30 days from the date of the information, but the Gangavaram Police Station have failed to forward the documents and not complied with the statutory demand.
It is further submitted that the driver of Car was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of SCCH-20 6 MVC No.444/2019 accident. The respondent no.2 has handed over the possession of the vehicle to the said driver and therefore, has contravened the proviso of MV Act and the rules framed there under and have committed the breach of the terms and conditions of the policy willfully, intentionally and consciously.
It is further submitted that the petitioner was traveling in Car as paid passenger, Car was registered and insured with this respondent as private car, but the insured was using the car for the purpose of carrying passengers for hire in violation to the limitation to use clause contained in the policy.
It is further submitted that the accident and involvement of car, as the same is not within the knowledge of this respondent and the insured in terms of the policy has not intimated the same. It is submitted that as per condition no.I of policy the insured/second respondent have to intimate the accident immediately on its occurrence SCCH-20 7 MVC No.444/2019 to insurer and produce the required documents and to co- operate with the insurer in defending the claim effectively.
It is further submitted that on the date of the accident, car was being driven in a reasonable speed and careful manner and there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of car. The accident in question occurred solely due to the negligence on the part of the driver of lorry bearing no.AP 16 TB 8529. The driver of lorry drove the lorry in reckless and negligent manner without diligently observing the on coming vehicles, hit the slow moving car and caused the accident. The petition is bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties to the petition. This respondent is not aware and therefore denies the age, income and occupation of the petitioner as alleged in the petition.
It is further submitted that, the petitioner has sustained such injuries as mentioned in column 22 of the petition, causing permanent disablement and took SCCH-20 8 MVC No.444/2019 treatment & spent huge amount towards medical expenses as alleged in column no.22 of the petition.
It is further submitted that the claimants may be directed to furnish the NEFT details namely name of bank, branch and IFSC code of that branch for speedy disbursement of compensation amount if any. This respondent further submits that such a direction by this Hon'ble Court not only will be assisting this respondent in timely disbursal of the compensation, but also will cure issue of stale cheques, subsequent revalidations of cheques in the case of other errors.
It is further submitted that the amount of compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly exorbitant and not as per the judgments of the Higher courts. Without prejudice to the submissions stated above and without admitting any liability, it is further submitted that in the event this Hon'ble Court comes to the SCCH-20 9 MVC No.444/2019 conclusion that the petitioners are entitled for any compensation along with interest, the rate of interest payable should be as per the prevailing rate of interest on deposits and as per the provisions of Interest Act 1978. The petitioners be directed to furnish the details of the PAN number, which shall be required for the deduction of TDS, any as per the provisions of Section 145A (b) and 194A (3) of Income Tax Act 1961.
It is further submitted that on the date of the accident, the driver of Car bearing No: KA-03-MA-9063 driving the car under the influence on intoxicating alcohol in violation of the provision of the MV Act. The crime and hospital records state that the driver was under the influence on intoxicating alcohol. The fact prima facie establish that the fact of driver of car driving the car under the influence on intoxicating alcohol.
It is further submitted that the insured by allowing the driver to drive the car under the influence on SCCH-20 10 MVC No.444/2019 intoxicating alcohol has committed the violation of the provision of the MV Act. Hence, the First Respondent under the contract of insurance is not liable to indemnify the insured/Second Respondent. The insured has made claim with this respondent claiming for damages sustained to the car in the accident. On careful examination and scrutiny of the claim repudiated the claim of the insured on the ground that the driver of car was under the influence on intoxicating alcohol has committed breach of terms and conditions willfully, intentionally and consciously.
It is further submitted that the petitioner also had consumed the alcohol along with the driver of the Car bearing No: KA-03-MA-9063 and the petitioner knowing fully well that driver was intoxicated which would end up in reckless driving and the petitioner was voluntarily accepted the risk of traveling in the car along with the driver who was intoxicated. Hence, the Maxim "Volenti Non Fit SCCH-20 11 MVC No.444/2019 Injuria" applies to this case. Therefore, the 1st respondent in the above case prayed to dismiss claim petition.
5. Brief averments of the written statement of the respondent No.2 is as follows:
It is submitted that the petitioner earning salary of 20,000/- per month are all false and the same are not admitted by this Respondent. The claim petition, regarding the place, date, time of the claim accident registration of the crime by the jurisdictional police, the extent of injuries sustained, the treatment taken, the amount spent, the doctors attended on the injured, etc are not admitted by this respondent and this respondent does not admit the nature of injuries.
It is further submitted that, the alleged accident occurred not due to negligence on the part of the driver of SCCH-20 12 MVC No.444/2019 the vehicle of the Car bearing No: KA-03-NA-9063, he was driving in very normal speed with extra caution and he was moving from Bengaluru to towards Palamanere and he never tried to over take any vehicle never the less Lorry bearing No: AP-16-TB-8529, it was the said Lorry was coming from the opposite side dashed the Car, but the jurisdictional police have registered the false complaint against the owner of the said Car. The Petitioner has spent a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards the medical expenses, conveyance and nourishment of food and other incidental charges are hereby denied as false.
It is further submitted that, the Petitioner was not able to work, not able to sit, stand, still the Petitioner not continues the Job are all false and denied since the injury as per the Medical certificate. All other allegations which are not specifically transverse herein are denied as false frivolous and mischief. The second respondent seeks SCCH-20 13 MVC No.444/2019 further permission to the file additional statement if found necessary.
It is further submitted that, the petition is bad in law for non-joinder of necessary parties since the bigger vehicle which caused the accident i.e. Lorry bearing No: AP-16-TB- 8529 of which the owner and driver of the said Lorry ought to have been made as parties and as accused in the police complaint, but the jurisdictional police has deliberately not brought in the above said Lorry which caused the accident into the picture.
It is further submitted that, the 2nd Respondent had insured his vehicle (Hyundai Santro) Car bearing No: KA- 03-NA-9063 with the first Respondent and the policy was enforced as on the date of the accident.
It is further submitted that, the claim for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- is highly exaggerated, SCCH-20 14 MVC No.444/2019 exorbitant, fanciful without any basis. The claim has no proportion whatsoever to the nature of injuries said to have been sustained by the petitioner and it is only an attempt to make unlawful gain by the petitioner. Therefore, the 2nd respondent in the above case prayed to dismiss claim petition.
6. On basis of the Pleadings and materials and materials, my Predecessor has framed the following:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that on 06.09.2016 at about 01.30 PM., the petitioner was proceeding in Car bearing No: KA-03-MA-9063 at Palamaners, Bangalore NH-69, Gangavaram Madalam at that time driver drove the Car in a rash and negligent manner, and overtake and dashed in front of lorry bearing No:
AP-16-TB-8529, as a result, petitioner sustained grievous injuries and driver of Car died at the spot?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. What order or award?SCCH-20 15 MVC No.444/2019
7. In order to prove their case, the Petitioner got examined himself as P.W.1 and examined doctor as PW-2 and exhibited documents as Ex.P.1 to 19 and closed his side. The 1st Respondent examined as RW-1 and exhibited documents as Ex.R1 to 4.
8. Heard the arguments of both side and perused the records. {Hereafter the parties are referred by their status as shown in the cause title.}
9. My findings on the above issues are as follows:
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 is none other than injured in the above case. He met a road traffic accident. The petitioner filed his petition averments in lieu of his chief examination and reiterated the petition averments. On the said date, time and place, he was a passenger in SCCH-20 16 MVC No.444/2019 the said Car and the driver was very rash, negligent and at high speed. In order to over take vehicle at forefront the car driver dashed the Lorry coming from opposite side due to which the petitioner suffered grievous injuries and Car driver, another died at the spot.
11. In order to prove substantiate the case, petitioner got marked police documents Ex.P1 to 9. However, it is settled law that evidence in MVC cases must be assessed independently form criminal proceedings therefore, prudence requires corroboration. The Ex.P1 FIR and Ex.P2 first information statement corroborate the occurrence of accident and its information to police. The Gangavaram police had registered FIR vide Cri.No.99/2016 against the Car Mr. Thamus Bobby Cooper, for committing offence punishable U/s 279 and 337 & 304(A) of IPC on basis of first information statement of Petitioner himself. The FIR was registered on the same day. There is no doubtful or intentional delay to register the FIR. SCCH-20 17 MVC No.444/2019
12. The Ex.P.3 is the Statement of Ganesh before the police. The Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5 is Panchanama of the Accused at the time of arrest and taking and taking possession of the Car. The Ex.P.6 is the sketch which corroborates the place of accident and course of vehicle causing accident.
13. As seen from the sketch, it is a two way National Highway and the car was proceeding from Bangalore towards Palamaner side. The Lorry was coming on opposite direction. The Car is seen crossed the lane and entered wrong side of the road. It clearly indicates an act of over taking which is rash and negligent driving. As per Ex.P.7 the brake of the car was in order and the accident was not due to mechanical defects of either vehicles. As per Ex.P.8 the petitioner has suffered simple injuries. At the time of admission, the petitioner was found Alcohol intoxicated. Be that as it may, he was a passenger in the SCCH-20 18 MVC No.444/2019 Car and rash or negligence cannot be attributed to him. Whether the Car driver was also intoxicated?. To determine this issue, prudence required more corroboration. The police filed charge sheet Ex.P.9 against the driver of the Car Mr. Thomas Bobby Copper for committing offence punishable U/sec., 279, 337, 338 & 304(A) of IPC. It is an abated charge sheeted as the Car driver also died as a result of accident, but he was not charge sheeted for drunk and drive.
14. The PW1 was cross examined at length. He deposed that they were five occupants in the Car and they were traveling to Tirupathi with friends Mr. Ganesh, Mr.Keshava, and another Mr.Ganesh was seated back side. Mr. Bobby the driver of Car was also his friend. He noticed a Lorry from opposite side. The Lorry and Car colluded at the middle of the road. Though, PW1 admits that accident occurred due to the lorry, as he perceived SCCH-20 19 MVC No.444/2019 and understands that Car driver was responsible for accident. The PW1 denied that Lorry dashed the Car. He specifically deposed that the Car dashed the Lorry. Nothing material could be elicited of PW1 to doubt his testimony.
15. The RW1 is the Assistant Manager of 1st Respondent company and he has taken a defence of Car driver was under the influence of Alcohol. In this respect the RW1 produced Ex.R.4 Certified copy of PM report of the driver. Though, the driver Mr. Bobby died of hemorrhage shock due to splene liver injury in the road traffic accident, in the stomach there was partially digested food contents smelling Alcohol. All these factors clearly goes to show that the driver of the Car was drunk and driving and responsible for accident. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 in the Affirmative.
SCCH-20 20 MVC No.444/2019
16. Issue No.2: Now in respect to the quantum of compensation is concerned, the petitioner produced Ex.P.8 Wound Certificate and Ex.P.10 to 12 - Two Discharge summaries. The Ex.P.8 showed injuries simple in nature. Therefore, prudence required more corroboration. The Ex.P.10 is the Discharge card by Sir C.V.Raman General Hospital, Bangalore. The petitioner was admitted in the said hospital on same day and also discharged on the same day referring him to Plastic surgery at Victoria Hospital. The Ex.P.11 is the Discharge summary again by the Victoria Hospital, but it does not note the diagnosis and the treatment given to the petitioner. As per Ex.P.11 the petitioner was discharged again on 11/9/2016 with an advice to shift him to another department PMSSY, Victoria Hospital, (Department of Plastic Surgery). At PMSSY, Victoria Hospital (Ex.P.12) the petitioner was then diagnosed Segmental Mandibbular Fracture, Right ZM Fracture, (Comminuted), Right Zygomatic Arch Fracture, 2) SCCH-20 21 MVC No.444/2019 Undisclosed Fracture of Right Tibia. The petitioner underwent complete CT scan investigation. On 16/9/2016 he underwent an Arch bar fixation, to Mandibbular fracture, right Zygomatic fracture and underwent Gillis elevation and cast application for the right tibia. The jaw must have been wired to the teeth of the opposite jaw and to keep it double while it heals. A cast was applied for undisplaced fracture of right tibia.
17. The PW2 is the Doctor and an orthopedic surgeon. He has assessed the disability of petitioner. However, he is not the treated / Doctor, but he has physically examined the petitioner on 17/6/2019 and found the petitioner suffers 37% physical disability of the Right Lower Limb and 12% to the whole body. The disability is due to lower limb Fracture. At the time of Assessment the injuries were 3 year old.
18. The doctor admitted that, Ex.P.8 was issued on 29/9/2016 and did not mention about Fracture of SCCH-20 22 MVC No.444/2019 Zygomatic or Fracture of Tibia. It must be diagnosed subsequently. Though, the doctor did not refer to the x-ray taken on 06/09/2016, he is of the opinion that the petitioner suffered a Fracture of Tibia and Fracture of Zygomatic. He has referred to Discharge summary Ex.P.10. When Ex.P.10 was read out it did not mention about Zygomatic Fracture or any kind of other Fractures. Therefore, questions arose on Ex.P.8 in the cross examination of PW-2 about the accidental injuries must be not related to the accident.
19. However, the Doctor is of the opinion that the petitioner has suffered disability of Lower limb due to Zygomatic Fracture and Tibia Fracture. Though, fractures are united, the petitioner is suffering physical difficulties and it causes discomfort while at work. SCCH-20 23 MVC No.444/2019
20. The Discharge summaries Ex.P.11 to 12, corroborate that the petitioner was admitted at Government Hospital and referred from department to department causing delay to diagnose the fractures. The Ex.P.12 diagnosed Zygomatic Fracture and Fracture of Right Tibia. The Ex.P.18 diagnosed Mandible Fracture.
21. The Petitioner deposed that he is a fitter at Larsen and Tourbo Ltd, Bangalore and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. The functions of Fitter would be operating machines, lifting weight, Paints & Tools. The physical impairment would definitely affect his efficiency. The petitioner is aged 28-29 year old. Though petitioner is young and fracture is united but he suffers physical impairment of 12% to whole body. But it could be on higher side for functional disability. Therefore, 6% is taken to assess loss of income due to functional disability. The SCCH-20 24 MVC No.444/2019 proper multiplier applicable in this case is '17'. There is no income proof, thus, Notional Income of Rs.9000/- is taken. Towards Pain & Sufferings and the petitioner is entitled for Rs.35,000/-, Loss of amenities Rs.10,000/-, Loss of earnings Rs.9000/-, Conveyance expenses Rs.10,000/- and Attendants, Food and Nourishment charges Rs.10,000/-. Medical bills Rs.14,399/-. The compensation for loss of future income is as follows :
9000 X 12 X 17 X 6% = Rs.1,10,160/-
22. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for just and reasonable compensation as under:
1 Pain and sufferings Rs. 35,000/-
2 Medical expenses Rs. 14,399/-
3 Nourishment and Rs. 10,000/-
attendant charges 4 Conveyance charges Rs. 10,000/-
5 Loss of amenities Rs. 5,000/-
6 Loss of earnings Rs. 9,000/-
7 Future loss of income Rs. 1,10,160/-
8 Loss of income during Rs. 10,000/-
laid up period Rs.1,93,559/-
Total SCCH-20 25 MVC No.444/2019 Rounded off to Rs.1,94,000/-
23. Liability In respect to the liability is concerned, the Rw-1 is an Assistant Manager of 1st Respondent company and he has taken a specific contention that Car driver was under the influence of Alcohol. The PM Report of Mr. Thomas Bobby Copper clearly established the stomach contained partial digested food and contents were smelling Alcohol.
The learned counsel for the petitioner stressed upon Section 185 Motor Vehicles Act 1988. He argued there is no evidence for Alcohol in his Blood exceeding 30 mg per ML. Therefore, offence is not made out and therefore petitioner should not be made to suffer at the hands of respondents.
The Alcohol was detected at the time of post mortem thereby the exact percentage of intoxication is not established. Nevertheless, the PM report contained evidence SCCH-20 26 MVC No.444/2019 of driver consumed Alcohol. Consuming Alcohol will quickly move in the blood stream to all parts of the body and quickly moving to the brain it will impair ability to think and coordinate movement while driving and he may not get proper control of the vehicle therefore, he is forbidden to drive in the intoxicated state. Despite of it, driver has continue to drive and tried to over take vehicles at forefront dashing Lorry coming from opposite side.
24. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the decision between M/s. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited V/s. Manju Devi in M.A.C.M.A. No: 2332 / 2011 dated: 2/4/2014.
Held :
"Even if there is any violation of terms and conditions of the policy, the Insurance company is under an obligation to satisfy claim of third parties since the liability of the Insurance company during subsistence of the liability under the policy is statutory in nature and at best, the Insurance company has to satisfy the compensation and recover the same from the insured".SCCH-20 27 MVC No.444/2019
25. When applied to the facts of this case, though the policy was in force as on date of accident and inmates were traveling in the Car which was within the knowledge of the 2nd Respondent and the driver had consumed Alcohol, thereby he was rash and negligent and responsible for accident. This amounts to fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the policy.
26. The petitioner being the victim must not be made to suffer and an order can be made to pay and recover compensation by the Insurance company from 2nd respondent. The 2nd Respondent cannot escape liability on the ground the vehicle was insured.
27. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of M/s. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company V/s. Manju Devi has strongly condemned that the drunk and drive is a menace in the society. Thereby the respondent 2 is liable to pay compensation cost and interest. The Insurance Company shall satisfy the compensation of SCCH-20 28 MVC No.444/2019 Petitioner and recover the same from insured. Therefore, I answer Additional Issue No.2 partly in the AFFIRMATIVE.
28. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in case between United India Insurance Co.Ltd., represented by its Deputy Manager Vs Sri.Siddlingaiah @ Siddalingappa and others, ILR 2018 KAR 3715 considered and granted interest @ 9% pa., from the date of claim petition till the date of realization.
26. Issue No.3: After having answered issue No.1 & 2 as supra I hold that, the petition filed by the petitioners is fit to be allowed in Part, in the result, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 is partly allowed with cost. SCCH-20 29 MVC No.444/2019
The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,94,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.
The 1st respondent shall pay the compensation amount, interest and cost to the petitioner within one month from the date of petition and recover the same from 2nd Respondent.
The 1st Respondent is entitled for a lien on the Car bearing No: KA-03-MA-9063 until repayment by the 2nd Respondent.
After deposit, the petitioner shall be released entire compensation amount with proper identification.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.3,000/-. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 27th day of August, 2019).
(A.G.SHILPA,) V ASCJ & Member, MACT, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.SCCH-20 30 MVC No.444/2019
A N N E X U R E:
Witnesses examined for petitioners:
P.W.1 : S.Ganesh
P.W.2 : Dr.Nagaraj
Documents marked for petitioners:
Ex.P1 : True copy of FIR,
Ex.P2 : True copy of FIS,
Ex.P3 : Complaint translation copy
Ex.P.4 : True copy of mahazar
Ex.P5 : Mahazar translation copy,
Ex.P6 : True copy of sketch,
Ex.P7 : True copy of IMV report,
Ex.P8 : True copy of wound certificate
Ex.P9 : True copy of charge sheet
Ex.P.10 to 12 : 03 Discharge summaries
Ex.P.13 : Out patient book
Ex.P.14 : MLC extract
Ex.P.15 : 17 medical bills
Ex.P.16 : 06 prescriptions
Ex.P.17 : 04 X-ray's
Ex.P.18 : Clinical report
Ex.P.19 : X-ray
SCCH-20 31 MVC No.444/2019
Witnesses examined for respondents: -
RW-1 : Mr. Bhaskar T Documents marked for respondents: -
Ex.R1 : Authorization letter
Ex.R2 : Policy with terms and conditions
Ex.R3 : Copy of the office letter address to
Respondent No.2 with postal
receipt
Ex.R4 : Certified copy of the Postmortem report
of the driver
(A.G.SHILPA,)
V ASCJ & Member, MACT,
Court of Small Causes,
Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.
SCCH-20 32 MVC No.444/2019
03.04.2018 MVC No.2811/2017
To hear further, call on
16.04.2018
V ASCJ, Bengaluru
SCCH-20 33 MVC No.444/2019
27.08.2019
Judgment pronounced in the Open
Court vide, separate Order :
ORDER
The claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 is partly allowed with cost.
The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,94,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.
The 1st respondent shall pay the compensation amount, interest and cost to the petitioner within one month from the date of petition and recover the same from 2nd Respondent.
The 1st Respondent is entitled for a lien on the Car bearing No: KA-03-MA-9063 until repayment by the 2nd Respondent.
After deposit, the petitioner shall be released entire compensation amount with proper identification.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.3,000/-. Draw award accordingly.
V Addl. Judge & 24th ACMM SCCH-20 34 MVC No.444/2019 AWARD SCCH NO.20 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA : BANGALORE CITY MVC No: 444/2019 PETITIONER: Sri. S.Ganesh S/o Shivakumar Aged about 34 years, Residing at No.9, 14th Cross, Gouthamapuram Bangalore - 560 008.
-V/s-
RESPONDENTS: 1. M/s. Bajaj Allianz Gen.Ins.Com.Ltd Golden heights, 4th floor, No.102 59th cross, 'C' 4th M-block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore - 10.
2. Sunil Dutt, S/o Tripalsingh, No.1, 1st floor, Jayalakshmi nilaya 8/2, opp. Subramaniswamy temple Subbannapalya, Banaswadi, Bengaluru - 560 033.SCCH-20 35 MVC No.444/2019
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. WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before Smt.A.G.Shilpa, V Addl., Judge and XXIV A.C.M.M, Member, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. Advocate for respondent.
ORDER The claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 is partly allowed with cost.
The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,94,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.
The 1st respondent shall pay the compensation amount, interest and cost to the petitioner within one month from the date of petition and recover the same from 2nd Respondent.
The 1st Respondent is entitled for a lien on the Car bearing No: KA-03-MA-9063 until repayment by the 2nd Respondent.
After deposit, the petitioner shall be released entire compensation amount with proper identification.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.3,000/-. Draw award accordingly.
SCCH-20 36 MVC No.444/2019Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day of 2019.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: Bangalore.
By the __________________________________ Petitioner/s Respondent No.1 No.2 _________________________________ Court fee paid on petition 10-00 Process Pleaders Fee _____________________________ Total Rs. -----------------------------------
Decree Drafted Scrutinised by
MEMBER, M.A.C.T.
METROPOLITAN: BANGALORE
Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR
SCCH-20 37 MVC No.444/2019