Bangalore District Court
The Union Of India vs Vikram on 23 March, 2018
C.R.P.67 Govt. of Karnataka
Form No.9 (Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgments in Suits
(R.P.91)
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-15) AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2018.
PRESENT:
Sri PATIL NAGALINGANAGOUDA, B.A.,LL.M.,
VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-15),
Bengaluru.
ORIGINAL SUIT No.9095/2013
PLAINTIFFS : 1. The Union of India,
represented by Secretary,
MHA, North Block,
New Delhi.
2. Frontier Head Quarter (SPL-
OPS),Border Security Force,
Bangalore, Air Force
Station, Yelahanka,
Bangalore - 5680 063, by
its Inspector General.
(By Sri A.N. Gangadharaiah,
Advocate)
-VERSUS-
DEFENDANTS : 1. Vikram,
S/o. Pannalal Meena,
Aged about 27 years,
Resident at Raj Mota,
Meena Dandi, Paragpur,
Jaipur Grameen District,
Rajasthan.
2. Madan Lal,
S/o. Shivnarayan,
Aged about 32 years,
Cont'd..
-2- O.S. No.9095/2013
Residing at Basai, P.S.
Kotputli, Jaipur District,
Rajasthan.
3. Iffco Tokio General Insurance
Company Limited, Alwar
Chamber of Commerce and
Industry, Near Petrol Pump,
Chamber Bhavan, Delhi
Road, Alwar, Rajasthan, by
its Branch Manager.
(Defendants placed Ex-parte)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Institution of the Suit : 13-12-2013
Nature of the Suit (Suit on : Damages/compensation.
pronote, Suit for declaration
and possession, Suit for injun-
ction etc,)
Date of the commencement : 10-01-2017
of recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 23-03-2018
was pronounced
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Year/s Month/s Day/s
----------------------------------
Total duration : 4 years, 3 months, 10 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs against defendants 1 to 3 for judgment and decree directing the defendants to pay damages of Rs.89,811/- along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum.
2. The brief facts of the plaint are as under -
Cont'd..
-3- O.S. No.9095/2013 Plaintiffs have contended second plaintiff is the Central Armed Police Force and first plaintiff is Union of India catering the services of Border Security Force safeguarding the sovereignty of the nation. Second defendant is the R.C. owner of the truck bearing registration No.RJ-32 GA-2670 and the first defendant is the driver of the above said truck on 26-09-2012. It is contended third defendant is the insurer of the truck bearing registration No.RJ-32 GA-2670. It is contended on 25-09-2012, the vehicle bearing registration No.DL- 9CAA-2134 Toyota Innova of the plaintiff left for F.T.R. Headquarter BSF Bangalore from BSF New Delhi and was moving as convoy along with other BSF vehicles. On 26-09-2012 at about 15:15 hours when the vehicle was plying on NH-8 at Parai village, Udayapur district, Rajasthan driven by its driver in a slowly and cautiously. At that time one fully loaded civil truck bearing registration No.RJ-32 GA-2670 came at a high speed in rash and negligent manner, hit the rear right side of the plaintiff's vehicle i.e., Toyota Innova and fled from the scene in forward direction. It is contended due to the accident caused by the defendant vehicle, the plaintiff's Innova vehicle severely got damaged. After the accident, the plaintiff's Sub-Inspector who was traveling with a convoy alighted and intercepted the defendant's truck and came to know that is was driven by its helper Bhawar Lal instead of its driver Vikram and at that time both of them were under influence of liquor. It is contended in this regard, Inspector Cont'd..
-4- O.S. No.9095/2013 Radhesham lodged an F.I.R. with Rishabdeo Police Station, Udyapur district. It is contended due to the accident, plaintiff's vehicle was rendered unusable for few weeks and it has sustained severe damages due to the said accident. The accident has occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of Civil truck bearing No.RJ-32 GA-2670 belonging to defendant No.2.
It is contended jurisdictional police have registered a case, filed charge sheet and accused has pleaded guilty before the competent Court of law. It is contended plaintiff department has got the vehicle repaired with its dealer Toyota Viva Magna Wheelers Private Limited, Hunasamaranahalli, Jala hobli by spending a sum of Rs.89,811/-. It is contended plaintiff is entitled to claim the above said amount towards damages from the defendant. With this submission, plaintiff prayed to decree the suit.
3. On the other hand, in spite of service of summons, defendants have not appeared before the Court, hence defendants placed ex-parte.
4. When case posted for ex-parte evidence, Deputy Inspector General PSO BSF himself examined as P.W.1 and one V.B. Kulkarni who is working as Inspector BSF himself examined as P.W.2 and got documents marked as per Exs.P.1 to P.18 and closed their side.
Cont'd..
-5- O.S. No.9095/2013
5. I have heard arguments on behalf of the plaintiff.
6. The following Points arise for my consideration-
(1) Whether the plaintiff is
entitled for the relief sought
for?
(2) What order?
7. My findings on the above Points are as under -
POINT No.1 - Affirmative;
POINT No.2 - As per final order, for the following -
REASONS
8. POINT No.1 : In order to substantiate averments of the plaint, initially one Gurupadappa who worked as Deputy Inspector General/PSO, FTR Headquarter (Spl-Ops), B.S.F., Bangalore examined as P.W.1 and thereafter plaintiffs have adduced evidence of one V.B. Kulkarni who is working as Inspector, B.S.F. as P.W.2. In their evidence, they have specifically deposed vehicle bearing No.DL-9C AA-2134 Toyota Innova is belonging to the plaintiff and it was detailed for the Government duty. Further, they have deposed on 25-09-2012, above said vehicle left for FTR Cont'd..
-6- O.S. No.9095/2013 Headquarters, B.S.F., Bangalore from B.S.F., New Delhi and was moving as convoy along with other B.S.F. vehicles. On 26-09-2012 at about 15:15 hours when the vehicle was plying on NH-8 at Parai village, Udayapur district driven by its driver slowly and cautiously, at that time one fully loaded Civil truck bearing registration No.RJ-32 FA-2670 driven by its driver came at high speed in rash and negligent manner, it the rear right side of the plaintiff's vehicle i.e., Toyota Innova and fled from the scene in forward direction. Further, they have deposed due to said accident caused by the defendant vehicle, plaintiff's Innova vehicle severely got damaged and after the accident, Sub-Inspector who was traveling with convey alighted and intercepted the defendant's truck and came to know that it was driven by its helper Bhawar Lal instead of its driver Vikram and at that time, both of them were under the influence of alcohol. Further, he has deposed due to the accident, plaintiff's vehicle was rendered unusable for few weeks and it sustained severe damage due to the accident and the accident has occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Civil truck bearing No.RJ-32 GA-2670 belonging to defendant No.2.
9. Further, they have deposed plaintiff department has got vehicle repaired with its dealer by spending Rs.89,811/-. Therefore, the defendants are jointly and Cont'd..
-7- O.S. No.9095/2013 severely liable to pay the above said amount towards damages.
10. In support of the above said contention, P.Ws.1 and 2 have produced certificate issued by the office of the Inspector General marked as per Ex.P.1, copy of the complaint marked as per Ex.P.2, English translation of Ex.P.2 marked as per Ex.P.2(a), copy of the F.I.R. marked as per Ex.P.3, English translation of Ex.P.3 marked as per Ex.P.3(a), mahazar marked as per Ex.P.4, translation of Ex.P.4 marked as per Ex.P.4(a), property acquiring form marked as per Ex.P.5, English translation of Ex.P.5 marked as per Ex.P.5(a), motor vehicle inspection report marked as per Ex.P.6, English translation of Ex.P.6 marked as per Ex.P.6(a), copy of the charge sheet marked as per Ex.P.7, English translation of Ex.P.7 marked as per Ex.P.7(a), Last report form marked as per Ex.P.8, its English translation marked as per Ex.P.8(a), order sheet of Case No.370/2012 marked as per Ex.P.9, its English translation marked as per Ex.P.9(a), vehicle report marked as per Ex.P.10, its English translation marked as per Ex.P.10(a), notice issued under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act and its reply are marked as per Exs.P.11 and 12 and their English translation marked as per Exs.P.11(a) and P.12(a), copy of the R.C. book marked as per Ex.P.13, copy of the insurance certificate marked as per Ex.P.14, copy of the driving license marked as per Ex.P.15, authorization given by the office Cont'd..
-8- O.S. No.9095/2013 of the Inspector General to P.W.2 marked as per Ex.P.16, C.D. marked as per Ex.P.17 and invoice issued by Toyota Company marked as per Ex.P.18. Apart from this, plaintiff has also produced photographs of the Innova vehicle bearing registration No.DL9CAA2131. It discloses Innova vehicle of the plaintiff has sustained severe damages as alleged in the plaint. Further, this Court is of the opinion that evidence of P.W.1 and contents of Exs.P.1 to P.18 have remained unchallenged. When evidence of P.W.1 and contents of Exs.P.1 to P.18 have remained unchallenged, I am of the opinion that plaintiff is entitled to claim damages against defendant Nos.1 and 2 only.
11. Admittedly, in the plaint, plaintiffs have pleaded driver of the truck and helper of the truck were under the influence of alcohol. When they found under influence of alcohol, it is clear violation of the policy conditions. Under such circumstances, defendant No.3 being insurance company of the plaintiff bearing registration No.RJ-32 GA-2670 is snot liable to pay damages. Defendant No.1being driver defendant No.2 being owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.RJ-32 GA-2670 are jointly and severely liable to pay damages to the plaintiff.
12. At this juncture, I would like to rely the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (1999) 3 Supreme Court Cases 457 in case of Iswar Bhai C. Patel alias Bachu Bhai Patel -versus- Harihar Behera and Cont'd..
-9- O.S. No.9095/2013 another wherein at Head Note 'C', Hon'ble Apex Court held the dictum -
"C' Evidence Act, 1872 - Ss. 114, III. (g) and 106 - Adverse presumption - Must be drawn against defendant who does not present himself for cross-examination and refuses to enter the witness-box in order to refute allegations made against him or to support his pleading in his written statement. (Para 17)."
In my considered view, the above said decision is helpful to the plaintiff to prove his case. In view of the principle laid down in the above said decision, defendants 1 to 3 are liable to pay damages to the plaintiff as prayed in the plaint. Hence, my answer to above Point is in affirmative.
13. POINT No.2 : For my reasons and discussion on the above Point, I proceed to pass the following -
ORDER Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants 1 to 3 is hereby decreed with cost.
Plaintiff is entitled to recover the damages in a sum of Rs.89,811/- from the defendants 1 to 3 jointly and severally along Cont'd..
- 10 - O.S. No.9095/2013 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of suit till the date of its realisation.
Defendants 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay damages in a sum of Rs.89,811/- along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of suit till the date of its realization.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to Judgment Writer, transcribed by him, revised by me and after corrections, pronounced in open Court on this the 23rd day of March, 2018.) (PATIL NAGALINGANAGOUDA) VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, An&/- Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
Examined on:
P.W.1 : Gurupadappa 10-01-2017 P.W.2 : V.B. Kulkarni 30-11-2017
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF:
Ex.P.1 : Certificate issued by the office of the Inspector General.
Ex.P.2 : Copy of the complaint;
Ex.P.2(a) : English translation of Ex.P.2.
Ex.P.3 : F.I.R.;
Ex.P.3(a) : English translation of Ex.P.3.
Cont'd..
- 11 - O.S. No.9095/2013
Ex.P.4 : Mahazar;
Ex.P.4(a) : English translation of Ex.P.4. Ex.P.5 : Property acquiring form; Ex.P.5(a) : English translation of Ex.P.5. Ex.P.6 : Motor vehicle inspection report; Ex.P.6(a) : English translation of Ex.P.6.
Ex.P.7 : Copy of charge sheet;
Ex.P.7(a) : English translation of Ex.P.7.
Ex.P.8 : Last report form Ex.P.8(a) : English translation of Ex.P.8. Ex.P.9 : Order sheet of case No.370/2012; Ex.P.9(a) : English translation of Ex.P.9.
Ex.P.10 : Vehicle report;
Ex.P.10(a) : English translation of Ex.P.10. Ex.P.11 : Notice issued under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act;
Ex.P.11(a) : English translation of Ex.P.11. Ex.P.12 : Reply to notice issued under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act;
Ex.P.12(a) : English translation of Ex.P.12.
Ex.P.13 : Copy of the R.C. book. Ex.P.14 : Copy of insurance certificate. Ex.P.15 : Copy of driving licence. Ex.P.16 : Authorisation letter. Ex.P.17 : C.D. Ex.P.18 : Invoice issued by the Toyota Company.
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANT:
Nil.
4.DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT:
Nil.
(PATIL NAGALINGANAGOUDA) VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, An&/- Bengaluru.
Cont'd..