Bangalore District Court
Harish Kumar. S vs The Registrar, Sri Devaraj Urs Academy ... on 4 February, 2025
SCCH-14 1 MVC.3850 & 3851/2020
KABC020173132020
BEFORE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE CITY.
SCCH-14
Dated : This the 04th day of February, 2025
Present : SRI. D.RAMESH.
B.A.L., LL.B.,
MEMBER, MACT,
XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU.
MVC No.3850/2020 C/w MVC.No.3851/2020
Petitioner: G.Balaji,
In S/o V.Ganeshan,
MVC.3850/2020 Aged about 54 years,
Residing at No.110,
5th Cross, Sai Nivas,
Patel Muniyappa Layout,
V.Nagenahalli,
Bengalore North,
R.T.Nagar Post,
Bengaluru - 560 032.
(By pleader Sri.Rauth
Shankarappa)
Petitioner/s : Harish Kumar.S
In S/o T.Srinivasappa,
MVC.3851/2020 Aged about 34 years,
Residing Near
SCCH-14 2 MVC.3850 & 3851/2020
Buthamma Temple,
4th Main Road,
Gandhi Nagar,
Kolar Town,
Taluk and District.
(By pleader Sri.Rauth
Shankarappa)
V/s
Respondent/s 1.The Registrar
Sri.Devaraj Urs Academy of
in both the cases Higher Education and
Research Centre,
Post Box No.62,
Tamaka Village and Post,
Kolar Taluk and District -
563101.
(RC owner of Mahindra Bolero
No.KA-07-M-5903)
(By pleader Sri.Vishwanth)
2. The New India Assurance
Company Ltd.,
No.301, 2B,
Unity Building Annexe,
P.Kalinga Rao Road,
(Mission Road)
Bengaluru.
(Vide Policy
No.67210131182100005882
valid from 19.09.2018 to
18.09.2019)
(By pleader Smt.Padma S
Uttur)
SCCH-14 3 MVC.3850 & 3851/2020
:JUDGMENT:
The Petitioner in MVC. No.3850/2022 and No.3851/2022 have filed the Petitions against the Respondents under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking Compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- and Rs.15,00,000/- respectively for the injuries sustained in a Road Traffic accident.
2. Since both these Petitions arises out of the same accident, these two cases were clubbed together and taken for common disposal.
3. The substance of averments made in both the Petitions are as under:
That on 04.09.2019 at about 10.00 a.m. the Petitioners were proceeding in a Mahendra Bolero car bearing Reg. No.KA-
07/M-5903, when they reached Jangli Peer, Darga on Devanahalli-Vijayapura road, the driver of the said car drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against another car Volkswagen Vento bearing No.KA-51-MB-7497.
Due to the said impact, both Petitioners sustained grievous injuries.SCCH-14 4 MVC.3850 & 3851/2020
Immediately after the accident, the Petitioners in both petitions were shifted to Government Hospital, Devanahali, thereafter they were shifted to R.L.Jalappa hospital, Kolar wherein they were admitted as inpatients and later discharged from the hospital and undergoing follow up treatment.
4. Prior to the date of accident, the Petitioner in MVC.3850/2020 was hale and healthy and he was working as Accounts Officer and getting monthly salary of Rs.1,10,000/- per month.
5. Prior to the date of accident, the Petitioner in MVC.No.3851/2020 was hale and healthy and working as Accountant and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month.
6. The Petitioners of both the Petitions have contended that the accident has taken place solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Mahindra Bolero car bearing Reg.No.KA-07/M-5903 which is owned by the Respondent No.1 and insured with Respondent No.2. As such both the Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Petitioners.
SCCH-14 5 MVC.3850 & 3851/2020
7. In pursuance of service of notice to the Respondents in both petitions, the Respondent No.1 and 2 appeared before the Court through their respective counsels and filed their detailed Objection Statements.
8. In both the petitions, Respondent No.1 has denied the age, avocation and income of the Petitioners. Further it denied that the accident has caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending car bearing No.KA-07/M-5903 and contended that the driver was driving slowly on the extreme left side of the road towards Devanahalli. When it reached near Jangli Peer Darga at Devanahalli Vijayapura road driver saw a car coming to his side in high speed manner, alerted driver of Mahindra bolero drove the vehicle to further extreme left side of the road to avoid any untoward incident. Despite of due care and caution and mitigating steps taken by driver of Mahindra bolero vehicle, the car coming from opposite direction which is moving towards Vijayapura in a high speed and reckless manner collided with Mahindra Bolero vehicle and pushed it towards footpath. The sole reason for the accident was driving the said Vento car in high speed without following any traffic SCCH-14 6 MVC.3850 & 3851/2020 rules. Further contended that driver of Bolero car had valid driving licence. Further it has denied the injuries sustained by the Petitioners in both the petitions and the expenses incurred for the treatment of the Petitioners. It is further contended that the owner and insurer of the Volkswagen Vento are not arrayed as parties, hence the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. On these grounds, it has prayed to dismiss both the petitions.
9. In both the petitions, Respondent No.2 has denied the age, avocation and the income of the Petitioners. Further it denied that the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending Mahindra Bolero car. Further it has denied the injuries sustained by the Petitioners in both the petitions and the expenses incurred for the treatment of the Petitioners. It is further contended that the Mahindra Bolero car is registered in the name of Registrar, the Sri Devaraj Urs Academy Higher Education Research and the petitioner is working in the said academy as Accounts Officer and travelling in the vehicle belonging to Devaraj Urs Academy. However, as per the IMT-29 to cover the risk of the employees SCCH-14 7 MVC.3850 & 3851/2020 the additional premium has to be paid and the insured has not paid additional premium under IMT-29 to cover the risk of the employees. Hence, this respondent is not liable to indemnify the present claim petition same may be dismissed against this respondent. The petition is liable to be dismissed for non joinder of necessary parties. It is further contented the accident has taken place due to negligence of driver of Volkswagen Vento as per the police records. Further it contended that owner of the insured car has not intimated the alleged accident to this respondent and there is violation of Section 134(c) of Motor Vehicles Act. The driver of Bolero car had no valid driving licence to drive the vehicle and knowingly and willfully entrusted the vehicle to a person who had no valid driving licence. Hence, there was breach of terms and conditions of the policy. On these grounds, it has prayed to dismiss both the petitions.
10. On the rival pleadings, my Learned Predecessor in office has framed following Issues;
SCCH-14 8 MVC.3850 & 3851/2020
ISSUES IN MVC No.3850/2020
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that he sustained grievous injuries in the nature of permanent disablement on 04.09.2019 at about 10.00 a.m. near Jangli Peer Darga, on Devnaahalli Vijayapura road, Vijayapura town, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru, in an accident arising due to rash and negligent driving of Bolero bearing Regn.No.KA-07/M-5903?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
3. What Order or Award ?
ISSUES IN MVC No.3851/2020
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that he sustained grievous injuries in the nature of permanent disablement on 04.09.2019 at about 10.00 a.m. near Jangli Peer Darga, on Devnaahalli Vijayapura road, Vijayapura town, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru, in an accident arising due to rash and negligent driving of Bolero bearing Regn.No.KA-07/M-5903?
SCCH-14 9 MVC.3850 & 3851/2020
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
3. What Order or Award ?
11. In order to prove the case of the Petitioners, the Petitioner in MVC.3850/2020 got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked 12 documents as per Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-12. The Petitioner in MVC No.3851/2022 got examined himself as P.W.2 and got marked 6 documents as per Ex.P-13 to Ex.P-18 and closed their side evidence. On the other hand, Respondent No.2 has examined its officer as RW.1 and got marked Ex.R.1 to 5 and the respondent No.1 has not adduced any evidence.
12. I have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Counsel for the Respondents and perused the written arguments of Respondent No.1, depositions, documents exhibited and materials available on record.
13. My answer to the Issues in MVC No.3850/2022are as under :
SCCH-14 10 MVC.3850 & 3851/2020
Issue No. 1 : Partly in the Affirmative Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative.
Issue No.3 : As per the Final Order,
for the following :
14. My answer to the Issues in MVC No.3851/2020 are as under :
Issue No. 1 : Partly in the Affirmative Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative. Issue No.3 in : As per the Final Order, for the following :
REASONS
15. Issues No.1 in MVC No.3850/2020 and MVC No. 3851/2020:- It is the case of the Petitioners that they sustained injuries in the accident caused by the driver of the offending Mahindra Bolero car bearing No. No.KA-07/M-5903.
On the other hand, the Respondent No.1 & 2 have denied the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending canter Mahindra Bolero car.
16. In order to prove the case of the petitioners, Petitioners in both the cases have been examined as P.W.1 and PW.2. They got marked 18 documents as per Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-18. Respondent No.2 has examined its officer as RW.1 and got SCCH-14 11 MVC.3850 & 3851/2020 marked Ex.R.1 to 5.
17. Upon going through the said documents, Ex.P.1 and 2 are the true copy of FIR along with complaint which shows that upon complaint lodged by one Harinath reddy who is the relative of the deceased who succumbed in the accident, the case was registered against the driver of the Mahindra Bolero car bearing No.No.KA-07/M-5903 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304A of IPC. Ex.P-3 and 4 are the Spot Panchanama and spot sketch which shows that the accident was taken place at the middle of the road and it was head on collision. Ex.P-5 is IMV Report, wherein the Motor Vehicle Inspector has opined that the accident was not taken due to any mechanical defects of the vehicles and also shows that both vehicles were damaged. They justifies the involvement of both vehicles in the accident. Ex.P-6 is the True copy of Charge-sheet, it shows that the driver of the Mahindra bolero car bearing No.No.KA-07/M-5903 was charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338, 304A of IPC. Ex.P.7 is the Wound Certificate of the Petitioner in SCCH-14 12 MVC.3850 & 3851/2020 MVC.3850/2020, it shows that he sustained simple and grievous injuries. Ex.P.13 is the Wound Certificate of the Petitioner in MVC.3851/2020, it shows that he sustained grievous injuries.
18. Ex.P-8 is the Discharge summary, which shows that the Petitioner in MVC.3850/2020 was treated as inpatient. Ex.P-9 is the Pay slip of PW.1, Ex.P.10 is the leave certificate of PW.1, Ex.P.11 is the final bill for sum of Rs.2,73,997/-, Ex.P.12 is pharmacy bills (84 in nos. for sum of Rs.81,990/-.
19. Ex.P-14 is the Discharge summary, which shows that the Petitioner in MVC.3851/2020 was treated as inpatient in the R.L.Jalappa hospital. Ex.P.15 is the final bill for sum of Rs.1,13,651/-, Ex.P-16 is the Pay slip of PW.2, Ex.P.17 is the leave certificate of PW.1, Ex.P.18 is pharmacy bills (42 in nos. for sum of Rs.40,069/-).
20. Further, the Respondent No.1 got examined its officer as RW.1. In his examination in chief he deposed that the policy issued in the name of Respondent No.1 in respect of offending vehicle was valid at the time of accident. In his cross SCCH-14 13 MVC.3850 & 3851/2020 examination he admitted that the policy is private car package policy. He has admitted that as per Ex.R.1, the policy covers the risk of 8 persons including driver.
21. The contents of the charge sheet show that accident has been taken place due to negligent driving of the driver of the Mahindra bolero car. The said charge sheet has not been challenged by the driver of the offending vehicle. Though the respondents have taken contention that the accident was not taken place due to negligence driving of the offending driver, they have not adduced any evidence to prove their contention. Up course the respondent No.2 examined its officer as RW.1, but he was not the eye witness to the accident. Hence his evidence would not be deciding factor for negligence. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the said accident has been occurred by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Mahindra bolero car and Petitioners in both the cases had sustained injuries. Though the petitioner in both petitions contended that they sustained grievous injuries in the nature of permanent disablement. They have not examined any SCCH-14 14 MVC.3850 & 3851/2020 doctor to prove that the injuries sustained by them are in the nature of permanent disablement. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.1 in both the cases in the "Partly Affirmative".
22. Issue No.2 in MVC No.3850/2022 :- As the Petitioner has proved that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Mahindra bolero car bearing No.KA-07/M-5903 by its driver, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation.
23. In the Petition, the Petitioner has shown his age as 54 years. The Petitioner has not produced any document to prove his age. As per pay slip at Ex.P.9, the date of birth of the petitioner is shown as 02.06.1966. The accident took place on 04.09.2019. Hence, the age of the petitioner as on the date of accident is 53 years to be taken for the purpose of assessment.
24. Further, the Petitioner has averred that he was working as Accounts Officer in Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of High Education & Research and was earning Rs.1,10,000/- per month. In this regard, he has produced Ex.P.9 pay slip for the month of August 2019. As per Ex.P.9, the petitioner was SCCH-14 15 MVC.3850 & 3851/2020 drawing monthly gross salary of Rs.1,05,825/-. Wherein professional tax of Rs.200/- has been deducted. After deducing professional tax of Rs.200, his net pay is Rs.1,05,625/- Hence, Rs.1,05,625/- p.m. is taken for the purpose of assessment of compensation.
25. With this background, the quantum of compensation to which the Petitioner is entitled may be adjudicated. For the sake of convenience, discussion may be had under following heads :
I COMPENSATION TOWARDS PAIN, SHOCK AND SUFFERING:
26. The Wound Certificate i.e., Ex.P-7 and other medical records reveal that in the accident the petitioner has sustained following injuries:
1. Acetabulum fracture right side.
2. Abrasion over left forehead 5 x 3 cm.
3. Abrasion over right shoulder 3 x2 cm.
4. Laceration over the nose, sutured.
5. Periorbital edema.SCCH-14 16 MVC.3850 & 3851/2020
Wherein, the Doctor has opined that the injury No.3 is simple in nature and injury No.1,2,4 &5 are grievous in nature. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the Petitioner, I am of the opinion that, awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/- under this head would be just and reasonable.
II COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF AMENITIES :
27. Bearing in mind the nature of the injuries sustained by the Petitioner, I am of the opinion that awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/- under this head would be just and reasonable.
III COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF INCOME DURING THE LAID -UP PERIOD:
28. The Petitioner has averred in the petition as well as in his evidence that he was admitted as an inpatient from 04.09.2019 to 14.09.2019. The Ex.P.8 discharge summary also justify the same. Therefore, the total period which the petitioner was admitted as an inpatient is 10 days.
SCCH-14 17 MVC.3850 & 3851/2020
29. It assumes importance to note that the PW.1 in his cross-examination at para 7, categorically admitted that his salary was credited to his bank account from the date of accident till he re join to the company. Hence he had no loss during the laid up period. Such being the case, this Tribunal is of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to get the compensation in this head.
IV COMPENSATION TOWARDS ATTENDANT'S CHARGES, EXTRA DIET & NOURISHMENT AND CONVEYANCE :
30. Admittedly, the Petitioner has sustained injuries and during the laid up period, the Petitioner might have engaged an attendant and also he might have spent some amount towards extra diet and nourishment and for his conveyance. In the facts and circumstances of the case, awarding compensation of Rs.6,000/- towards attendants charges, Rs.6,000/- towards extra diet and nourishment and Rs.6,000/- towards conveyance would be just and reasonable. In all, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.18,000/- under this head. SCCH-14 18 MVC.3850 & 3851/2020 V. COMPENSATION TOWARDS MEDICAL EXPENSES :
31. The Petitioner has deposed that he spent more than Rs.3,00,000/- towards medical expenses and other expenses. In this regard he has produced final bill at Ex.P.11 amounting to Rs.2,73,997/- and 84 medical bills at Ex.P.12 amounting to Rs.81,990/-. In the cross-examination of PW.1 specifically denied that the said amount has been reimbursed from his institute. I have carefully gone through the said bills, they are original bills. If an employee intended to get reimbursement the medical claim from his department he has to submit original bills. Under such circumstances he could not produce the original bills before the court. Here in this case the petitioner has produced original bills. Hence it presumes that he has not claimed reimbursement from his institution. As such, the petitioner is entitled for sum of Rs.3,55,987/- which is rounded off to Rs.3,56,000/- as a compensation under this head.
VI COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF FUTURE EARNINGS/COMPENSATION TOWARDS PERMANENT SCCH-14 19 MVC.3850 & 3851/2020 DISABILITY :
32. The Petitioner has alleged that due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident, he has suffered permanent disablement and he is unable to breathe, unable to walk, for long distance, unable to squat, sit on cross leg, unable to claim stairs, unable to use Indian toilet etc., But in order to prove the gravity of the injuries, the Petitioner is expected to produce evidence. However, he has not examined any doctor to prove his disability. Moreover it is not the case of the petitioner that he discontinued the job due to the injuries sustained in the accident. At this juncture it is profitable to refer the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in ILR 2010 Kar 2439 Subash Vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Manager & ors. Wherein, it held as follows;
"Re-Point 1: As rightly pointed out by learned counsel appearing for Insured, the Tribunal has grossly erred in awarding compensation towards loss of future income, resulting in serious miscarriage of justice, when in fact, the claimant has been continues in the service, then, the question of awarding compensation towards loss of future income does not arise."
Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for any loss of future income under this head.
SCCH-14 20 MVC.3850 & 3851/2020
TOTAL COMPENSATION TO WHICH THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED:
33. To sum up, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation under the following heads :
1. Pain, shock & Suffering Rs. 50,000/-
2. Loss of amenities Rs. 50,000/-
3. Attendant's charges, Extra Rs. 18,000/-
diet, and conveyance
4. Medical expenses Rs.3,56,000/-
5. Loss of income during the NIL laid up period
6. Loss of Future income NIL Total Rs.4,74,000/-
Thus, totally the Petitioner is awarded compensation of Rs.4,74,000/- with costs and simple interest at 6% p.a. from the date of this petition till the date of realization.
34. Issue No.2 in MVC No.3851/2022 :- As the Petitioner has proved that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Mahindra bolero car bearing No.KA- 07/M-5903 by its driver, the Petitioner is entitled for SCCH-14 21 MVC.3850 & 3851/2020 compensation.
35. In the Petition, the Petitioner has shown his age as 34 years. The Petitioner has not produced any document to prove his age. As per pay slip at Ex.P.16, the date of birth of the petitioner is shown as 11.06.1985. The accident took place on 04.09.2019. Hence, the age of the petitioner as on the date of accident is 34 years to be taken for the purpose of assessment.
36. Further, the Petitioner has averred that he was working as Accountant in Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of High Education & Research and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. In this regard, he has produced Ex.P.16 pay slip for the month of August 2019. As per Ex.P.16, the petitioner was drawing monthly gross salary of Rs.20,647.35/-. Wherein, professional tax of Rs.200/- has been deducted. After deducing professional tax of Rs.200, his net pay is Rs.20,447/-. Hence, Rs.20,447/- p.m. is taken for the purpose of assessment of compensation.
37. With this background, the quantum of compensation to which the Petitioner is entitled may be adjudicated. For the sake of convenience, discussion may be had under following SCCH-14 22 MVC.3850 & 3851/2020 heads :
I COMPENSATION TOWARDS PAIN, SHOCK AND SUFFERING:
38. The Wound Certificate i.e., Ex.P-13 and other medical records reveal that in the accident the petitioner has sustained following injuries:
1. Acetabulum fracture right side.
2. Laceration over the root of nose Wherein, the Doctor has opined that the injury No.1 and 2 are grievous in nature.
Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the Petitioner, I am of the opinion that, awarding compensation of Rs.40,000/- under this head would be just and reasonable.
II COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF AMENITIES :
39. Bearing in mind the nature of the injuries sustained by the Petitioner, I am of the opinion that awarding compensation of Rs.40,000/- under this head would be just and reasonable.
SCCH-14 23 MVC.3850 & 3851/2020
III COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF INCOME DURING THE LAID -UP PERIOD:
40. The Petitioner has averred in the petition as well as in his evidence that he was admitted as an inpatient from 10.09.2019 to 30.09.2019. The Ex.P.14 discharge summary also justify the same. Therefore, the total period which the petitioner was admitted as an inpatient is 20 days.
41. It assumes importance to note that the Ex.P.17 letter issued by the Respondent no.1 institution shows that during the laid up period the petitioner herein availed earned leave. He has not availed leave without pay. Hence he had no loss during the laid up period. Such being the case, this Tribunal is of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to get the compensation in this head.
IV COMPENSATION TOWARDS ATTENDANT'S CHARGES, EXTRA DIET & NOURISHMENT AND CONVEYANCE :
42. Admittedly, the Petitioner has sustained injuries and during the laid up period, the Petitioner might have engaged an SCCH-14 24 MVC.3850 & 3851/2020 attendant and also he might have spent some amount towards extra diet and nourishment and for his conveyance. In the facts and circumstances of the case, awarding compensation of Rs.6,000/- towards attendants charges, Rs.6,000/- towards extra diet and nourishment and Rs.6,000/- towards conveyance would be just and reasonable. In all, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.18,000/- under this head. V. COMPENSATION TOWARDS MEDICAL EXPENSES :
43. The Petitioner has deposed that he spent more than Rs.3,00,000/- towards medical expenses and other expenses. In this regard he has produced final bill at Ex.P.15 amounting to Rs.1,13,651/- and 42 medical bills at Ex.P.18 amounting to Rs.40,069/-. In the cross-examination of PW.2 specifically denied that he has medical facility in his institution. I have carefully gone through the said bills, the said bills are acceptable. As such, the petitioner is entitled for sum of Rs.1,53,720/- which is rounded off to Rs.1,53,800/- as a compensation under this head.
SCCH-14 25 MVC.3850 & 3851/2020
VI COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF FUTURE EARNINGS/COMPENSATION TOWARDS PERMANENT DISABILITY :
44. The Petitioner has alleged that due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident, he has suffered permanent disablement and he is unable to breathe, unable to walk, for long distance, unable to squat, sit on cross leg, unable to claim stairs, unable to use Indian toilet etc., But in order to prove the gravity of the injuries, the Petitioner is expected to produce evidence. However, he has not examined any doctor to prove his disability. Moreover in his cross-examination he admitted that the was receiving the salary of Rs.20,647/- at the time of accident and now he is receiving salary of Rs.48,000/-. It means he is continuing his job. At this juncture it is profitable to refer the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in ILR 2010 Kar 2439 Subash Vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Manager & ors. Wherein, it held as follows;
"Re-Point 1: As rightly pointed out by learned counsel appearing for Insured, the Tribunal has grossly erred in awarding compensation towards loss of future income, resulting in serious SCCH-14 26 MVC.3850 & 3851/2020 miscarriage of justice, when in fact, the claimant has been continues in the service, then, the question of awarding compensation towards loss of future income does not arise."
Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for any loss of future income under this head.
TOTAL COMPENSATION TO WHICH THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED:
45. To sum up, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation under the following heads :
1. Pain, shock & Suffering Rs. 40,000/-
2. Loss of amenities Rs. 40,000/-
3. Attendant's charges, Extra Rs. 18,000/-
diet, and conveyance
4. Medical expenses Rs.1,53,800/-
5. Loss of income during the - NIL -
laid up period
6. Loss of Future income - NIL -
Total Rs.2,51,800/-
Thus, totally the Petitioner is awarded compensation of Rs.2,51,800/- with costs and simple interest at 6% p.a. from the date of this petition till the date of realization.SCCH-14 27 MVC.3850 & 3851/2020
46. Regarding Liability : According to the petitioner, the respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. The petitioners were inmates of the offending vehicle and policy is package policy, therefore risk inmates of the offending car covers. The Respondent No.1 who is the owner of the offending vehicle supports the claim of the petitioner pertaining to the policy is concerned. But the respondent No.2 who is insurer though specifically admitted about the issuance of package policy and validity of the policy it's specific contention is that the offending vehicle has been registered in the name of the Institution i.e., Respondent No.1 and the petitioners were employees of Respondent No.1, as per IMT 29 to cover the risk of employees, additional premium has to be paid, but respondent No.1 has not paid additional premium as per IMT 29 to cover the risk of employees. Hence, this respondent is not liable to be indemnify the present claim petition. Hence, prays to dismiss against them.
In this regard official of respondent No.2 examined as RW.1 and got marked copy of insurance at Ex.R.2, policy SCCH-14 28 MVC.3850 & 3851/2020 premium schedule at Ex.R.3, standard proposed form at Ex.R.4 and standard form for private car package policy at Ex.R.5. Upon careful perusal of Ex.R.2 policy, it is clear that it is a "private car package policy", wherein premium is paid for own damages as well as 3rd part liability. Admittedly, the policy is the package policy which covers the inmates of the car. In order to show the difference between the package policy and Act policy, the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.1 have relied upon the judgment in MFA No.188/2017 between the Branch Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Vijay Praveena Cutinha and another decided on 14.12.2023. Wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka observed as follows:
"17. The directions of the IRDA are to be considered in the light of the contentions taken up by the appellant- Insurance Company in the written statement. Obviously, the written statement was filed on 19.04.2013, which is much later to the said Circular issued by the IRDA. Therefore, it is evident that the contentions taken up by the appellant- Insurance Company was very much clarified by the IRDA much earlier point of time. But the written statement does not refer to the said circular. Hence, there cannot be a doubt that the package policy covers the risk of the inmates of the vehicle.SCCH-14 29 MVC.3850 & 3851/2020
19. The decision in the case of ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. SURENDRA NATH LOOMBA AND OTHERS5 also holds that there is no scintilla of doubt that a 'Comprehensive/package policy' would cover the liability of the insurer for payment of compensation for the occupant in a car. It was clarified that the Act Policy and Comprehensive Policy stands on a different footing and in view of the circular issued by the IRDA, the inmate of the car is covered by the insurance, if it is a 'package policy'.
24. From the stand point of insured, the 'package/ comprehensive policy' has the meaning to 'cover all the liability' or 'specified package'. But, the granular details of the package and the insured buying the coverage in the packages are neither available in public domain nor in the fine print of the policy. If the buyer of the policy has options to make the policy cover in various aspects, then it could have been said that the 'package policy' has these options (or packages) available. In the case on hand, it is evident that respondent No.2-Insurance Company had not offered the coverages/packages even though, it is a 'package policy'. The difference between the 'package policy' and the 'Act Policy' has not been clarified. It is pertinent to note a perusal of the Ex.R1-policy shows that it is a 'package policy' and if it is not a 'package policy', how it is different from an 'Act Policy' is not forthcoming. Therefore, it would be a futile exercise to enter into a discussion, as to whether the premium paid would determine the nature of the policy. On the other hand, it would suffice to hold that the 'package policy' covers the risk of inmates as per circular issued by IRDA and the policy having been issued in 2012, the said policy should cover the clarification or the circular issued by IRDA in this regard. It appears that in recent years the insurance Companies have started SCCH-14 30 MVC.3850 & 3851/2020 specifying the number of inmates of the vehicles covered under the package policy."
The learned counsel for respondent No.1 also relied on another judgment reported in 2012 AIR SCW 6286 National Insurance Co. Vs. Balakrishna and another wherein it is held that as under;
"21. In view of the aforesaid factual position, there is no scintilla of doubt that a "comprehensive/package policy" would cover the liability of the insurer for payment of compensation for the occupant in a car. There is no cavil that an "Act Policy" stands on a different footing from a "comprehensive/Package Policy".
As the circulars have made the position very clear and the IRDA, which is presently the statutory authority, has commanded the insurance companies stating that a "comprehensive/package Policy" covers the liability, there cannot be any dispute in that regard. We may hasten to clarify that the earlier pronouncements were rendered in respect of the "Act Policy" which admittedly cannot cover a third party risk of an occupant in a car. But, if the policy is a "Comprehensive/Package Policy", the liability would be covered. These aspects were not noticed in the case of Bhagyalkshimi (supra) and, therefore, the matter was referred to larger Bench. We are disposed to think that there is no necessity to refer the present matter to a larger Bench as the IRDA, which is presently the statutory authority, has clarified the position by issuing circulars which have been reproduced in the judgment by the Delhi High Court and we SCCH-14 31 MVC.3850 & 3851/2020 have also reproduced the same."
The counsel for respondent No.2 relied upon the judgment in CMA.No.2166-2019 and CMP.No.8871-2019 between United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Illakiyamathi decided on 24.02.2023. Wherein Hon'ble High Court of Madras held as follows:
"7. We are therefore constrained to allow this appeal to the limited extent of exonerating the Insurance Company from any liability. There will be an award against the fourth respondent, who is the owner of the vehicle. The parties are directed to bear their own cost in the appeal. There will be a direction to the Tribunal to refund the entire amount deposited by the Insurance Company to the Insurance Company forthwith along with accrued interest if any.
8. Considering the fact that these cases of employees travelling in the private vehicles of the employers met with an accident and got injured or faced untimely death, we see a need to direct the IRDAI to make coverage of these employees mandatory while issuing a private car policy for such vehicles. To make such coverage, payment of premium under IMT-29 compulsory as an inbuilt coverage.
9. In cases where such death or injuries are happened even though the employer is made liable to pay the compensation, recovery of compensation from the employer becomes a nightmare for the claimants as they may not SCCH-14 32 MVC.3850 & 3851/2020 be possessed of means to satisfy such awards. This leads to the unfortunate claimants to suffer endlessly having lost their sole breadwinner or having suffered injuries. We therefore expect the IRDAI to act swiftly and implement the directions at the latest within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Accordingly,this appeal is partly allowed. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed."
Keeping the aforesaid principles in mind, this Tribunal would decide the case on hand. As discussed above admittedly the policy issued in the name of respondent No.2 in respect of the offending vehicle is the "Package Policy" which covers the risk of inmates of the car. Further it is admitted fact that, the petitioners were employees under respondent No.1 and on the date of accident they were proceeding in the car during the course of their employment. These facts are undisputed. Now a question would arise that when the respondent No.2 has issued package policy covers risk of 8 passengers including the driver, is there any additional premium to be paid to the employees. As per the Respondent answer to the said question is yes. But no such condition is prescribed in the policy schedule. If once SCCH-14 33 MVC.3850 & 3851/2020 premium was paid to cover the risk of inmates of the car, how once again additional premium to be paid to cover the employees. The Respondent has not explained that if employees are excluded as per the policy, then who has to travel in the car. According to them additional premium has to be paid to the employees of respondent No.1. But they admit that the policy is 'Package Policy' which is issued in the name of respondent No.1 and only employees of respondent No.1 are to be travelled. The Respondent No.1 has not violated the terms and conditions of the said policy. Such being the case, how respondent No.2 contend that additional premium should be paid to cover the employees. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the policy which is issued by respondent No.2 in the name of respondent No.1 in respect of the offending vehicle is comprehensive/package policy. Accordingly, it covers the risk of inmates of the car. The petitioners were proceeding in the car during the course of their employment and even they have not violated the seating capacity. The said car has 8 seating capacity. Admittedly, only 3 persons including driver were travelling at the time of accident. Under such circumstances, the respondent No.2 being SCCH-14 34 MVC.3850 & 3851/2020 insurer is liable to pay compensation. As discussed above, the accident has occurred due to negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. Respondent No.1 being the owner and respondent No.2 being the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Accordingly, I answer Issue No. 2 in both petitions as "Partly in the Affirmative".
47. Issue No.3 in both cases : From the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the Petitioner in MVC No.3850/2022 is entitled for compensation of Rs.4,74,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the Petition.
The Petitioner in MVC No.3851/2020 is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,51,800/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the Petition.
In the result, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER The Claim Petition filed by the Petitioner in MVC No.3850/2022 against the SCCH-14 35 MVC.3850 & 3851/2020 Respondents No.1 and 2 under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby allowed in part with costs.
The Claim Petition filed by the Petitioner in MVC No.3851/2020 against the Respondent No. 1 and 2 under Sec. 166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby allowed in part with costs.
The Petitioner in M.V.C. No.3850/2022 is entitled for compensation of Rs.4,74,000/- along with cost and simple interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of the Petition till the date of deposit of the Award amount.
The Petitioner in M.V.C. No.3851/2020 is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,51,800/- along with cost and simple interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of the Petition till the date of deposit of the Award amount.
The Respondent No.1 and 2 in both the cases are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the Petitioners.
The Respondent No.2 being the Insurer of Mahindra Bolero car in both cases, is directed to deposit the Award amount and SCCH-14 36 MVC.3850 & 3851/2020 interest within 60 days from the date of the Award.
On deposit of the Award amount and interest by the Respondent No.2, since the same is meager one, the entire amount shall be released to the Petitioners in both petitions by way of E- Payment after his proper identification.
The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- respectively in both cases.
Draw Award accordingly.
Keep the Original Judgment in M.V.C. No.3850/2020 and the copy of the Judgment in M.V.C. No.3851/2020.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 04th day of February, 2025) (D.RAMESH) MEMBER, MACT, XVI ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU.SCCH-14 37 MVC.3850 & 3851/2020
Annexure Witnesses examined on behalf of the Petitioners :
P.W.1 : G.Balaji P.W.2 : Harish Kumar Documents marked as Exhibits for the Petitioners :
Ex.P.1 True copy of FIR
Ex.P.2 True copy of Complaint
Ex.P.3 True copy of spot mahazar
Ex.P.4 True copy of spot sketch
Ex.P.5 True copy of IMV report
Ex.P.6 True copy of charge sheet
Ex.P.7 True copy of Wound certificate
Ex.P.8 Discharge summary
Ex.P.9 Pay slip of PW.1
Ex.P.10 Leave certificate of PW.1
Ex.P.11 Final bill for sum of Rs.2,73,997/-
Ex.P.12 Pharmacy bills (84 in nos. for sum of
Rs.81,990/-
Ex.P.13 Wound certificate
Ex.P.14 Discharge summary
Ex.P.15 Final bill for sum of Rs.1,13,651/-
Ex.P.16 Pay slip of PW.2
Ex.P.17 Leave certificate of PW-2.
Ex.P.18 Pharmacy bills (42 in nos. for sum of
Rs.40,069/-
Witness examined on behalf of the Respondents :
RW.1 : Bikram Rana SCCH-14 38 MVC.3850 & 3851/2020 Documents marked as Exhibits for the Respondents :
Ex.R.1 : Authorization letter
Ex.R.2 : Copy of insurance policy with IMT coverage
Ex.R.3 : Policy premium schedule
Ex.R.4 : Standard proposed form
Ex.R.5 : Standard form for private car package policy
(D.RAMESH)
MEMBER, MACT,
XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU.