Bangalore District Court
Company And Policy Was vs No.2 Has Also Produced Ex.R.3 ... on 6 January, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL. SMALL CAUSES AND ADDL.
MACT., BANGALORE, (SCCH-7)
Dated this, the 6th day of January, 2015.
PRESENT : SMT.INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR,
B.Com.,LL.B. (Spl),
IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM,
Court of Small Causes,
Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
M.V.C.No.6326/2012
Sri. Balan.M.
S/o Muthuswamy,
Aged about 56 years,
No.62, 1st Cross,
Anjaneya Street, Sonnenahalli,
Opp: Vivek Nagar Post, .... PETITIONER
Bangalore-47.
(Owner of the vehicle bearing
No.KA-03-B-8888)
(By Sri.B.C.Venkatesh, Adv.,)
V/s
1. M.Shajahan
S/o Mohammed Hanifa,
Aged about years,
No.20A/1, Sathyanarayana Nagar,
Old Vinayagar Koil,
Backside Padanur,
Coimbatore Dist,
Tamilnadu-641023.
(Owner of the vehicle No.TN-63-R-0723)
2. The Manager,
2 MVC No.6326/2012
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
No.31, Ground Floor, TBR Towers,
Near Mahaveer Jain College,
Mission Road,
Bangalore-560027.
...RESPONDENTS
(Policy No.OG-12-9995-1803-00020526)
(R1- By Sri.S.Nischal, Adv.,)
(R2- By Sri.K.Prakash, Adv.,)
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed the present petition as against the Respondents No.1 and 2 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 praying to award global compensation of Rupees 5,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a.
2. The brief averments of the petitioner's case are as follows;
a) On 23.04.2012 at about 5.30 hrs near Kuranguchavadi, GRT Hotel, Bangalore Bye Pass Road, Salem, when the driver of the vehicle bearing LGV-Light Goods Vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-03-B-8888 was driving by its driver in a slowly and cautiously on the extreme left side of Kuranguchavadi, GRT Hotel, Bangalore Bye Pass Road, Salem, at that time, the driver of the Eicher Canter bearing Registration No.TN-63-R-0723 drove the same in rash and negligent manner at high speed so as to endangering to human life came from opposite direction and dashed against his Good's vehicle. Due to this terrific impact, his vehicle was badly damaged. The damaged vehicle was shifted to Divyasree Auto Garage, Bangalore, using 3 MVC No.6326/2012 crane service for repairs, wherein the damaged vehicle was repaired and he incurred more than Rupees 3,00,000/- towards repairs and towing charges. The damaged vehicle was in garage for more than 60 days, as a result, he sustained huge loss as the vehicle involved in the accident was commercial Goods Carriage vehicle and he has not claimed any compensation from any Insurance company.
b) The accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle Eicher Canter bearing Registration No.TN- 63-R-0723 and the jurisdictional Salem City Traffic Police have registered a case against the driver of the Eicher Canter bearing Registration No.TN-63-R-0723 in their Crime No.246/2012 under Section 279 IPC.
c) At the time of accident, Eicher Canter bearing Registration No.TN-63-R-0723, was insured with the Respondent No.2 Insurance Company vide policy No:OG-12-9995-1803- 00020526 valid from 10th August 2011 (Hrs) to 09th August 2012 midnight and the Respondent No.1 was the owner of the Eicher Canter bearing Registration No.TN-63-R-0723 at the time of accident. Both the Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to him. Hence, this Petition.
3. Initially, though the notice was duly served on the Respondent No.1, he was remained absent and hence, he was placed as exparte on 06.12.2012. Later, the Respondent No.1 has appeared before this Tribunal through his Learned Counsel and as per the Order dated 06.12.2012, the exparte Order is set-aside 4 MVC No.6326/2012 and the Respondent No.1 is taken on file. But, initially, inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the Respondent No.1 had not filed the written statement. Later, as per the Order dated 06.08.2013 passed on I.A.No.VI, the written statement filed by the Respondent No.1 is taken on file.
4. In response to the notice, the Respondent No.2 has appeared before this Tribunal through his Learned Counsel. But, inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the Respondent No.2 had not filed the written statement. Later, as per the Order dated 30.08.2013 passed on I.A.No.I, the written statement filed by the Respondent No.2 is taken on file.
5. The Respondent No.1 inter-alia denying the entire case of the Petitioner, has further contended as follows;
a) The petitioner is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case.
b) The claim made in the petition is highly exorbitant and without any basis. The Petitioner is trying to make wind fall out of the alleged incident. The Petitioner is solely responsible for the accident due to his negligent driving, hence, the Petitioner is not entitled for any compensation, much less the one claimed in the instant petition.
c) He has ascertained from his driver that, despite the best effort made by the answering its driver the accident could not be averted due the rash driving of the vehicle by Petitioner as 5 MVC No.6326/2012 a result the Petitioner has caused the damage to his vehicle as well as it.
d) His vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-63-R-0723 was insured with the Respondent No.2 and was valid and existing as on the date of accident vide policy No.OG-12-9995-1803- 00020526 valid from August 10, 2011 to midnight of August 9, 2012. In the event, this Hon'ble Court comes to a conclusion that, he is liable to compensate the Petitioner, the burden of payment of compensation has to be case upon the Respondent No.2 as per the contract of insurance under taken by the Respondent No.2.
e) On the alleged date of incident, his vehicle was driven by his driver MR.P.Ganesn S/o Pandie R/o No.14, Pappannan Nagar, 1st Street, Tirupur-641 607. The said Driver was holding valid and effective driving license issued by the competent authority to drive the vehicle and bearing Driving License No.TN- 57-20020002470 and the same was valid and in force as on the date of incident.
f) The vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-63-R-0723 was registered with Regional Transport Authority, State of Tamilnadu and the same was valid and effective to be driven as on the date of incident.
g) The accident was caused due to the sole negligent driving of the vehicle by the Petitioner, hence, he is not entitled to claim any compensation from him. The Petitioner exerting 6 MVC No.6326/2012 influence over the jurisdiction Police has foisted a false case against his Driver. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. The Respondent No.2 inter-alia denying the entire case of the Petitioner, has further contended as follows;
a) The petition is not maintainable either under law or on facts.
b) It has issued Insurance Policy bearing No.OG-12-9995- 1803-00020526 against the alleged in respect of the Eicher Canter bearing Registration No.TN-63-R-0723, valid from 10.08.2011 to 09.08.2012. However, the liability/obligation of it, shall be strictly subject to the terms and conditions, exceptions and limits and endorsements of/to policy, compliance of 64 VB of the Insurance Act and law governing thereto and also the other enactments corresponding to the incident and other aspects and meters involved in adjudicating the matter and finally ascertainment of the liability of it. The original of the said policy is in possession of the insured. The insured may kindly be directed to produce the original insurance policy before this Hon'ble Court, failing which, it shall produce the copy of the policy, which may kindly be exhibited and read in evidence.
c) The alleged accident has been twisted and described as if the insured vehicle is responsible for the alleged accident and the stated facts are far from truth. Hence, the damage in the alleged accident, the Petitioner is put to strict proof that, he has not claimed any amount from the insurer of the LGV vehicle 7 MVC No.6326/2012 towards the alleged damages. Even if his claim are proved to be genuine, then also, the surveyor of the LGV vehicle must have surveyed the loss, as the amount of alleged repairs payable will be based on the survey report, wherein, the amount must have shown as assessed after ascertaining the depreciation. When the vehicle is older by more than six months, the depreciation clause comes into effect. The owner of the vehicle is entitle for the damages, after deducting the amount towards depreciation, plastic parts, rubber parts, etc., and in addition to it, some fixed amount, like Rupees 500/- or any amount agreed towards compulsory excess will have to be deducted. In addition to it, some of the parts of the vehicle, which are normally subject to wear and tear and damages for various reasons will not get covered and consequential losses will not get covered. Hence, under the circumstances, the Petitioner is called upon to produce the survey report and an endorsement from the insurer of the LGV to establish his alleged claims and contentions, for his eligibility to maintain the petition and about the ownership and actual damages, if any, suffered by the LGV vehicle. The procedure for assessing the damages to the vehicle have to be same, even when the damages are claimed by third party also, as he cannot claim the value of new parts for the replaced old parts and the concept of insurance is make good of the damages/losses really suffered and not to make profit.
d) As per Section 134(c) of the M.V. Act 1988, it is the mandatory duty of the insured/Respondent No.1 to furnish the particulars of the policy, date, time and place of accident, particulars of injured and the name of the driver and particulars 8 MVC No.6326/2012 of the driving license, but, the insured/first Respondent has not complied with statutory and contractual obligation/requirement. If the alleged cause of action were to be true, he was supposed to act so. Hence, it is not liable to indemnify any amount to him against the alleged cause of action and the case is liable to be dismissed against it for non-compliance of statutory and contractual obligations, if the Petitioner proves his claims.
e) As per Section 158(6) of the M.V. Act, 1988, it is a 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 jurisdictional Police have failed to forward the documents and not obeyed/complied with the statutory responsibility and obligation., hence, it is unable to file comprehensive written statement. Hence, this Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to direct them to produce all the documents and furnish copies of the same to it and permit it to file further comprehensive written statement later.
f) The Petitioner is put to strict proof that, he has not filed any other petition/application before any other Court/Tribunal/Authority in respect of the same alleged accident and against it and the present petition is maintainable.
g) If the Petitioner establishes the alleged claims and contentions and the maintainability of the Petitioner against it and if this Hon'ble Court awards any compensation, the rate of interest may be restricted to 4.5% or to the lowest of Bank rates, 9 MVC No.6326/2012 in the interest of justice and equity. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
7. Based on the above said pleadings, my Learned Predecessor-in-Office has framed the following Issues;
ISSUES
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Eicher Canter bearing Registration No.TN-63-R-0723 by its driver and in the said accident, the Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-03-B-
8888 belonging to Petitioner suffered damage?
2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
3. What Order or Award?
8. In order to prove his case, the Petitioner himself has been examined as P.W.1 and has also examined one witness as P.W.2 by filing the affidavits as their examination-in-chief and has placed reliance upon Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.20. On the other hand, the Respondent No.2 has examined two witnesses on his behalf as R.W.1 and R.W.2 and has placed reliance upon Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.6. The Respondent No.1 has not adduced any evidence on his behalf.
9. Heard the arguments.
10 MVC No.6326/201210. In support of the submission, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner Sri.B.C.Venkatesh has placed reliance upon the decisions reported in,
i) (2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases 62 ( S.Iyyapan V/s United India Insurance Company Limited and Another), wherein, it is observed that, A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Ss.149 and 147- Third-party insurance-Insurer's Liability to pay compensation to third party (victim of accident)- Breach of condition of insurance policy-Effect of- Compensation to third party, reiterated, has to be paid by insurer even in such a case-Insurer may proceed against insured for recovery of amount paid in such an event.
B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Ss.149(2) (a) (ii) 146, 147, 3 and 10-Third party insurance-
Insurer's Liability to pay compensation-Defence by insurer as to breach of condition of policy excluding driving by person who is not duly licensed-Availability of-Commercial light motor vehicle (i.e., Mahindra Maxi Cab), which was insured-Met accident while it was being driven by a person holding licence to drive light motor vehicle-But, no endorsement in said licence to drive light motor vehicle used as commercial vehicle-Effect thereof-Held, mere absence of said endorsement in licence could not be ground for insurer to disown its liability to pay compensation to third party-More so when third party had statutory right to recover compensation from insurer and it was for insurer to proceed against insured for recovery of amount paid to third party in case thee was any breach of condition of insurance policy.
11 MVC No.6326/2012When C riding his bicycle reached in front of a house, S came from opposite direction driving a vehicle Mahindra Maxi Cab at high speed and dashed against C, who subsequently succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. The Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, awarded a compensation of Rupees 2,42,400 with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of the petition. The Tribunal was of the view that, the person possessing licence to drive light motor vehicle was entitled to drive Mahindra Maxi Cab, in appeal, the High Court observed that, since the vehicle was being used as a taxi, which was a commercial vehicle, the driver of the said vehicle was required to hold a contract of insurance, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant. Hence, the present appeal was filed for consideration of the questions as to whether the Insurance Company would disown its liability on the ground that, the driver of the vehicle, though duly licensed to drive a light motor vehicle, was not having any endorsement in the licence to drive a light motor vehicle used as commercial vehicle?
a) Held: Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 make it mandatory on the part of the insurer to satisfy the judgments and awards against persons insured in respect of third party risk. Section 149(2) (a) (ii) of the said Act gives a right to the insurer to take a defence that, person driving the vehicle at the time of accident was not duly licensed. In other words. Section 149(2)
(a)(ii) puts a condition excluding driving by any person who is not duly licensed.
b) In the instant case, the driver was holding a valid driving licence to drive Light motor vehicle. The motor vehicle in question, by which accident took place, was Mahindra Maxi Cab. Merely because the driver did not get any endorsement in the driving licence to drive 12 MVC No.6326/2012 Mahindra Maxi Cab, which is a light motor vehicle, the High Court has committed grave error of law in holding that, the insurer is not liable to pay compensation because the driver was not holding the licence to drive the commercial vehicle. The insurer cannot disown its liability on the ground that, although the driver was holding a licence to drive a light motor vehicle but, before driving light motor vehicle used as commercial vehicle, no endorsement to drive commercial vehicle was obtained in the driving licence. In any case, it is the statutory right of a third party to recover the amount of compensation so awarded from the insurer. It is for the insurer to proceed against the insured for recovery of the amount in the event there has been violation of any condition of the insurance policy. Reading the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 it is clear that, in certain circumstances the insurer's right is safeguarded but, in any event the insurer high speed to pay compensation when a valid certificate of insurance is issued notwithstanding the fact that, the insurer may proceed against the insured for recovery of the amount.
c) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Ss.146, 147 and 149-Third-party insurance of vehicle-Compulsory duty imposed under MV Act to obtain such insurance-Object and purpose thereof, reiterated.
The heading "Insurance of Motor Vehicles against Third -Party Risks" given in Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Chapter VIII of the old act of 1939) itself shows the intention of the legislature to make third party insurance compulsory and to ensure that, the victims of accident arising out of use of motor vehicles would be able to get compensation for the death or injuries suffered. The provision has been inserted in order to protect the persons traveling in vehicles or using the road from the risk 13 MVC No.6326/2012 attendant upon the user of the motor vehicles on the road. To overcome this ugly situation, the legislature has made it obligatory that, no motor vehicle shall be used unless third party insurance is in force.
D.Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-S.149(2)-Third- Party insurance- Insurer's liability-Defences available to insurer against insured persons Under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the insurer can defend the action inter alia on the grounds namely,
(i) the vehicle was not driven by a named person
(ii) it was being driven by a person who was not having a duly granted licence and
(iii) Person-driving the vehicle was disqualified to hold and obtain a driving licence.
ii) 2014 STPL (Web) 2039 Allahabad High Court (National Insurance Company Ltd V/s Smt.Kudesia Hashmi and Others), wherein, it is observed that, A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Sections 147 and 168-MACT-Breach of Policy-Person having licence to drive LMV can drive commercial vehicle also-Insurance company cannot escape from its liability to pay compensation-on date of accident offending truck was insured by appellant/insurance company and policy was alive-Admittedly driver was holding a valid driving licence to drive LMV-insurer is liable to pay compensation so awarded to dependants of victim of fatal accident-impugned judgments is upheld- Appeal dismissed.
14 MVC No.6326/2012B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Sections 168 and 173-MACT-Just and Reasonable Compensation-impugned award is upheld-Found that, deceased was having a good savings in N.S.C-Fixed deposits; current account and recurring deposits schemes- Balance-Sheet was filed by showing income of Rupees 25,000/- per month, but, Tribunal has taken only Rupees 10,000/- per month-Deceased was 55 years so multiplier of 11 was rightly applied- Found no reason to interfere with impugned order passed by Tribunal- Appeal dismissed.
11. In support of the submission, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2 Sri.K.Prakash has placed reliance upon the decisions reported in,
i) 2008 AIR SCW 4048 (New India Assurance Co.Ltd., V/s Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir and Another), wherein, it is observed that, A. Motor Vehicles Act, (59 of 1988), Ss.3,10,149-Central Motor Vehicles Rules (1989), R.51- Liability of insurer-Accident claim- Driver of offending vehicle was holder of licence of three wheeler i.e., autorickshaw delivery van-licence was not meant for driving "transport vehicle"
but, for goods carrying public carrier-Fact that, licence was granted for 20 years and not 3 years shown that, driving licence was not for transport vehicle-Insurer is therefore, not liable.
ii) 2009 ACJ 1411 Supreme Court of India (Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., V/s Angad Kol and Others), wherein, it is observed that, 15 MVC No.6326/2012 Motor Vehicles Act 1988 Sec.149(2)(a)
(ii) R/w. Sec.2(21) and 14(2) - Motor Insurance - Driving Licence - Liability of Insurance Company Delivery auto, a goods vehicle, dashed against a person and she sustained fatal injuries - Insurance Company seeks to avoid its liability on the ground that driver did not possess valid and effective driving licence - Driver had licence to driver 'LMV' whereas he was driving a goods transport vehicle- Definition of LMV bring within its umbrage both 'transport vehicle' or 'omnibus' but a distinction between an effective licence granted for transport vehicle and passenger motor vehicle exists -
Distinction between an LMV and a "transport vehicle" is evident-Licence to the driver was granted for 20 years, a presumption arises that it was meant for the purpose of a vehicle other than a transport vehicle - Had the licence been granted for transport vehicle, the tenure thereof could not have exceeded 3 years - Whether the driver had a valid and effective licence and Insurance Company is liable - Held: No. Insurance Company directed to pay compensation to the claimants with right to recover the amount from owner and driver of the vehicle.
iii) 2008 ACJ 1307 Supreme Court of India (Sardari and Others V/s Sushil Kumar and Others), wherein, it is observed that, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Sec.149(2) (a)
(ii) and 5 -Motor Insurance - Driving Licence - Liability of Insurance Company - Tractor hit a tonga and tonga driver sustained fatal injuries 16 MVC No.6326/2012
- Tractor driver admitted that he had not driving licence to drive a tractor - Concurrent findings of High Court and the Tribunal that driver of Tractor had no licence and High Court held that claimants are entitled to compensation from driver and owner of the vehicle - whether Insurance Company is rightly exempted from liability - Held, Yes. Owner of vehicle has a statutory obligation to see that driver of vehicle whom he authorised to drive holds a valid licence.
iv) 2009 AIR SCW 2865 (Bhuvan Singh V/s M/s Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., and Others), wherein, it is observed that, D) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S-
149-Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.58-Liability of insurer-Cyclist died in accident with tractor- Plea by owner of tractor that, driver was driving vehicle-Driver was to show that, he held licence in respect of vehicle-His Learning Licence had expired before accident took place- he filed an application for grant of regular licence and later-Thus he was not holding valid licence on date of accident- Insurer is, therefore, not liable to reimburse owner.
v) AIR 2006 Supreme Court 2138 (K.P.Sudhakaran and Another V/s State of Kerala and Others), wherein, it is observed that, C) Interpretation of Statutes-Alleged intention behind provision-cannot be used to defeat express words of provision-once statutory 17 MVC No.6326/2012 rule is made without providing any exceptions-No exceptions can be carved out to such rule by judicial interpretation-Nor can exception from application of clear and specific rule be claimed on ground of hardship or similar reasons.
vi) AIR (37) 1950 Supreme Court 265 (Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax, West Bengal V/s Keshab Chandra Mandal), wherein, it is observed that,
b) Interpretation of statutes-Language plain question of hardship or inconvenience- Relevancy of hardship inconvenience cannot alter the meaning of the language employed by the Legislature if such meaning clear on the face of the state or the rules.
vii) 2006 AIR SCW-5312 (Ram Pravesh Singh and Others V/s State of Bihar and Others), wherein, it is observed that, D) Constitution of India, Arts, 141,142- Binding precedent-Any direction given on special facts, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142, is not a binding precedent.
viii) M.F.A No.1837 of 2008 High Court of Karnataka (New India Assurance Company Limited V/s Smt. Padmavathamma and Others), wherein, it is observed that,
3) The Tribunal is directing the appellant to pay the compensation and to recover the same is on the face of it erroneous and is without jurisdiction. When the liability of the appellant is not present, either statutorily or contractually, the direction to pay compensation and to recover the amount would not be available to the 18 MVC No.6326/2012 Tribunal since it cannot rewrite the contract in favour of the parties. Further, the possible inspiration drawn from the judgments of the Supreme Court issuing such a direction cannot also be pressed into service since the Supreme Court would be in a position to issue such directions by virtue of its extraordinary power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Such power is not available to the Tribunal. Hence, direction to the appellant to pay compensation amount and recover the same from the insured is erroneous and is liable to be set aside.
ix) M.F.A No.30903/2009 (MV) High Court of Karnataka (National Insurance Company Limited V/s Smt. Nagamma and Others), wherein, it is observed that,
4) Incidentally, an argument canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondent -
claimants that, the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act. 1994, while amending Sub-section (2) of Section 10, has sought to substitute clause "(e) transport vehicle", for clauses (e) to (h) - (e) medium goods vehicle, (f) Medium passenger motor vehicle, )g) heavy goods vehicle & (h) heavy passenger motor vehicle) and since clause "(Defendant) light motor vehicle" continued to find place in the said Section, therefore the 'transport vehicle' in the case on hand, which was a light motor vehicle would not require a driver of such a vehicle to possess a licence with a specific endorsement to drive a transport vehicle and that, such a requirement is only in respect of a medium or a heavy goods transport vehicle, is not tenable. With the amendment to the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, with effect from 28th March 2001, requiring such an endorsement, the matter is no longer in doubt.
19 MVC No.6326/2012x) M.F.A No.21079/2009 C/w MFA Crob No.745/2009 (MV) High Court of Karnataka (Oriental Insurance Company Limited V/s Smt. Ruksana Begum and Others), wherein, it is observed that, These provisions of law were not discussed and were not the subject matter in S.Iyyapan's case and since the provisions of law referred to above were not discussed, it was held that, insurance company has to satisfy the award irrespective of the fact whether the driver holds valid driving licence for transport or non-transport vehicle and also since amendment to Central Motor Vehicles Rules was not in force. Hence, I hold that, the judgment in S.Iyyapan's case is per incurium to the facts of the present case. It is necessary to refer some of the decisions on per incuriam.
xi) ILR 2000 KAR 2009 (Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation V/s. George Ninum) MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 (CENTRAAL ACT No. 59 OF 1988) - SECTION 168 - Claim petition of a person claiming to be the owner of the car, for compensation for repair of the car was allowed rejecting the contention of the KSRTC that, claimant's ownership of the car and Special Damages are not proved - HELD - In the absence of any material to show that, the claimant was the owner of the car, the claim petition itself was not maintainable - Mere producing of documents is not sufficient to prove Special Damages. Such documents have be proved. Mere production of document is not a proof of its contents.
Secondly, Ex.P.6 and P.7, which are produced by the claimant where reliance is placed on them by the claimant, the claimant is claiming special damages which are required to be proved like 20 MVC No.6326/2012 any other claim. In such circumstances, mere production of a document is no proof of the claim at all. The author of those two documents is not examined. The Mechanic who repaired the car is not examined. Absolutely, there is no whisper regarding the actual expenditure incurred by the alleged owner. The Tribunal has somehow wriggled out of this situation only to award some compensation on the ground that, the motor accident has occurred in which a car was damaged. It is not sufficient to award compensation specially in the case of special damages, in the absence of these essential materials before the Tribunal. Therefore, it is difficult to sustain the impugned order.
12. My answers to the above said Issues are as follows;
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative, Issue No.2 : In the Negative, Issue No.3 : As per the final Order, for the following;
REASONS
13. ISSUE NO.1 :- The P.W.1, who is the Petitioner has stated in his examination-in-chief that, on 23.04.2012 at about 5.30 hrs, near Kuranguchaavadi, GRT-Hotel, Bangalore By-Pass Road, Salem, when the driver of the vehicle bearing Registration No.LGV-Light Goods Vehicle KA-03-B-8888 by name Dayalan.B., who is none other than his son, was driving the vehicle slowly and cautiously on the extreme left side of the road by observing the traffic rules and norms and when the vehicle reached near Kuranguchavadi, GRT-Hotel, Bangalore Bye Pass Road, Salem, at 21 MVC No.6326/2012 that time, the driver of the Eicher Canter bearing Registration No.TN-63-R-0723 drove the same in rash and negligent manner at high speed so as to endangering human life came from opposite direction and dashed against his goods vehicle. He has further stated that, due to this terrific impact, his vehicle was badly damaged as stated in the IMV Report. He has further stated that, the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of Eicher Canter bearing Registration No.TN-63-R-0723 and the jurisdictional Salem City Traffic Police have registered a case against the driver of the Eicher Canter bearing Registration No.TN-63-R-0723 in their Crime No.246/2012 under Section 279 of IPC.
14. The P.W.1 in his cross-examination has also clearly stated that, his son was driving the lorry at the time of accident and the Lorry was proceeding to Salem at that time and his son after parking the Lorry had gone to take tea and the accident was occurred on National Highway.
15. On the other hand, the Respondent No.2 has examined his Senior Executive Legal as R.W.1, who has stated in her examination-in-chief that, the driver of the said Light Goods Vehicle was stopped of the same almost in the middle of the road without taking any precautions at early morning to know the oncoming vehicles in the darkness and hence, the alleged accident was occurred due to the sole rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the Canter and the Police have filed the charge sheet mechanically without ascertaining the true facts.
22 MVC No.6326/2012For consideration of the said evidence of R.W.1, nothing is available on record on behalf of the Respondent No.2 that, at the time of accident, the Light Goods Vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-03-B-8888, which was owned by the Petitioner and which was driven by the son of the Petitioner at the time of accident was stopped almost in the middle of the road. Further, the R.W.1 is not an eye witness to the accident. The same has also been clearly admitted by the R.W.1 in her cross-examination. Further, in her cross-examination, she has clearly stated that, the Police have filed a charge sheet as against the driver of the vehicle, which caused the accident and to show that, the vehicle belonging to the Petitioner was stopped in the middle of the road at the time of accident, they have not produced any documents.
16. Further, the Petitioner has produced Ex.P.1 FIR, Ex.P.2 Charge Sheet in Tamil Language, Ex.P.2(a) English Translation Copy of Ex.P.2 Charge Sheet, Ex.P.3 Spot Panchanama, which is in Tamil Language, Ex.P.3(a) English Translation of Ex.P.3 Spot Panchanama, Ex.P.4 Spot Hand Sketch, Ex.P.5 MVI Report, Ex.P.6 Photographs relating to his vehicle, Ex.P.6(a) C.D. relating to Ex.P.6 Photographs, Ex.P.7 Form No.45 and Ex.P.8 R.C. Book, which disclosed that, due to the negligence on the part of the driver of offending Eicher Canter bearing Registration No.TN-63- R-0723, the said road traffic accident was taken place, wherein, the Light Goods Vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-03-B-8888, which is owned by the Petitioner was damaged, which is clear from the following discussion.
23 MVC No.6326/201217. On perusal of Ex.P.1 FIR, Ex.P.2 Charge Sheet and Ex.P.2 (a) English Translation Copy of Ex.P.2 Charge Sheet, it is clearly disclosed that, on 22.04.2012 at about 5.30 a.m., the son of the Petitioner, who was a driver of TATA 407 bearing Registration No.KA-03-B-8888 came from Omlur side to Salem and stopped the said vehicle at GRT Hotel, near Kuranguchavadi, by switching on the indicators of his vehicle and enquired the hotel manager about the address, where should he go and deliver the goods in his vehicle and at that time, the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-63-R-0723 Eicher Mini Lorry, which was driven by the accused, i.e., Ganesha S/o E.Pandi, with rash and negligent manner in behind and hit the said TATA 407 on the back side and due to that hit, TATA 407 was rolled on the road on its upper side on reverse on the road and it was fully damaged, but, the persons who were in the said vehicle were not at all injured by the said accident and only the said vehicle TATA 407 was badly damaged because of the accident and as such, the Sub-Inspector of Police Traffic Investigating Wing, Salem City has filed a charge sheet as against the driver of Eicher Mini Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-63-R-0723, namely Ganesh S/o E.Pandi for the offences punishable under Section 279 of IPC in TIWPS Crime No.246/12. The very involvement of the said offending Eicher Mini Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-63-R-0723 as well as its driver in the said road traffic accident, in which, TATA 407 bearing Registration No.KA-03-B-8888 was damaged, are very much clear from the contents of Ex.P.1, Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.2(a).
24 MVC No.6326/201218. Ex.P.3 Spot Panchanama and Ex.P.3(a) English Translation of Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 Hand Sketch clearly disclosed that, the accident spot is in front of the GRT-Hotel and the Light Goods Vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-03-B-8888 was standing by the side of the road median, wherein, the accident was taken place due to the rash and negligent manner of driving of the Eicher Mini Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-63-R-0723 by its driver and the entire negligence is on the part of the said driver and not on the driver of Light Goods Vehicle.
19. Ex.P.6 Photographs and Ex.P.6(a) C.D. relating to the said photographs, are clearly disclosed about the damages caused to the Light Goods Vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-03- B-8888 in the said road traffic accident.
20. Ex.P.7 Form No.45 and Ex.P.8 R.C. Book issued by the concerned RTO, disclosed that, at the time of accident, the Petitioner was an owner of the said Light Goods Vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-03-B-8888, which caused damages in the said road traffic accident.
21. Ex.P.5 Inspection Report further clearly disclosed that, a Criminal Case was registered as against the driver of the offending Eicher Canter bearing Registration No.TN-63-R-0723, namely, P.Ganesh S/o E.Pandi, which owned by the Respondent No.1 at the time of accident, under Crime No.246/2012 by the TIW Salem City Police, which caused on 23.04.2012 at 5.00 p.m., near Kuranguchavadi, GRT-Hotel, Bangalore By Pass Road, wherein, the front wind screen glass, L/s door glass, L/s, H/L Assy 25 MVC No.6326/2012 are broken, Fr.cowl, L/s bumper, dashboard are damaged, L/S cabin body fully damaged, cabin L/S top roof damaged and pressed towards left side carrier body Fr.L/S damaged for one meter, which is relating to the Light Goods Vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-03-B-8888, which was owned by the Petitioner.
22. From the above said material evidence both oral and documentary, it is made crystal clear that, due to rash and negligent driving of Eicher Canter Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-63-R-0723 by its driver, namely Ganesh S/o E.Pandi, the said road traffic accident was taken place, wherein, the Light Goods Vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-03-B-8888 owned by the Petitioner had sustained damages and at the time of accident, the Respondent No.1 was an owner of the said Eicher Canter bearing Registration No.TN-63-R-0723. Accordingly, I answered Issue No.1 in the Affirmative.
23. ISSUE NO.2 :- The P.W.1 has stated that, the damaged vehicle had shifted to Divyasree Auto Garage, Bangalore, by using crane service for repairs, wherein, the damaged vehicle was repaired and he incurred more than Rupees 3,00,000/- towards repairs and towing charges. He has further stated that, the damage vehicle was in garage for more than 60 days and as a result, he sustained huge loss as the vehicle involved in the accident was commercial goods carriage vehicle.
24. In this regard, the Petitioner has produced Ex.P.9 Fare receipt, Ex.P.10 Quotation, Ex.P.11 Credit Slip, Ex.P.12 Labour 26 MVC No.6326/2012 Bill, Ex.P.13 to Ex.P.17 Invoices 5 in numbers, Ex.P.18 Cash Bills 4 in numbers, Ex.P.19 Tax Invoices dated 22.05.2012 and Ex.P.20 Estimate Bills 8 in numbers.
25. The Petitioner has also examined the mechanic of Divyasree Auto Garage as P.W.2, who has stated in his examination-in-chief that, the vehicle bearing Registration No.KAA-03-B-8888 reported to be met with an accident on 23.04.2012 at about 5.30 hrs near Kuranguchavadi, GRT-Hotel, Bangalore Bye Pass Road, Salem and on 23.04.2012 the said accident damaged vehicle was handed over by the Petitioner to Divyashree Auto Garage for repairs and after receiving the vehicle on 23.04.2012 by their Garage Proprietor, the same has been handed over to him for repair, tinkering, painting and other incidental necessary repairs. He has further stated that, in their garage, himself along with associate mechanics conducted repairs and raised credit bills i.e., Ex.P.11 to Ex.P.20 worth about Rupees 1,25,000/- including miscellaneous and incidental charges and after repair, the said vehicle was handed over to the Petitioner on 11.07.2012 after clearing the cash bill. He has further stated that, the vehicle shown in Ex.P.6 photographs, is repaired by him in their garage and the bill dated 28.05.2012 issued by Divyashree Auto garage for Rupees 41,000/- and the signature appearing there in is of its proprietor and the other bills relating to Ex.P.11 to Ex.P.20 relating to the repair of the vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-03-B-8888.
26. From the above said oral version of P.W.1 and P.W.2 as well as the contents of Ex.P.9 to Ex.P.20, it appears that, the 27 MVC No.6326/2012 Petitioner had repaired his Light Goods Vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-03-B-8888, which sustained damages in the road traffic accident on 23.04.2012 at 5.30 p.m., in Divyashree Auto Garage, Bangalore by the P.W.2 and his associate mechanics from 23.04.2012 to 11.07.2012 and after clearing the bill amount of Rupees 1,04,856/-, the said vehicle was handed over to the Petitioner. Further, while answering Issue No.1, this Tribunal has already come to the conclusion that, due to rash and negligent driving of the offending Eicher Canter Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-63-R-0723 by its driver, namely Ganesh S/o E.Pandi, the road traffic accident was taken place on 23.04.2012 at about 5.30.a.m., in front of GRT-Hotel, near Kuranguchavadi, Bangalore By Pass Road, Salem and in the said road traffic accident, the Light Goods Vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-03- B-8888, which was owned by the Petitioner sustained damages. But, based on the same, it cannot be come to the conclusion that, the Petitioner spent a sum of Rupees 1,04,856/- towards repairs and towing charges and his damaged vehicle was in the garage for more than 60 days and as such, huge loss was caused to him, as the P.W.2 is not an author of Ex.P.9 to Ex.P.20 and he is only a mechanic, who had repaired the said vehicle as per the say of his Proprietor of Divyashree Auto Garage, along with his associate mechanics. Further, the P.W.2 has not produced any documents to show that, he was a mechanic and working in Divyashree Auto Garage at the time of repair of the said vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-03-B-8888. The same has also been clearly admitted by the P.W.2 in his cross-examination. Further, the P.W.2 is not a signatory of the said Ex.P.9 to Ex.P.20. In this 28 MVC No.6326/2012 regard, the P.W.2 in his cross-examination has clearly stated that, the bills at Ex.P.11 to Ex.P.20 do not bear his signature. Further, he has clearly stated in his cross-examination that, he doesn't know whether the owner is having licence to run the garage. He has further stated that, they will not issue Job Card, when the vehicle is left in the garage for repair and he doesn't know the contents of Ex.P.11 to Ex.P.20. He has further clearly stated that, he doesn't know, whether the owner of the garage would retain the carbon copies of bills relating to the repairs and he doesn't know the model of the vehicle repaired from their garage relating to this case. He has further clearly admitted that, the new vehicle gets depreciation from time to time and after 10 years, the paint of the vehicle would go. Further, the Petitioner has not produced the Job Card issued by the proprietor of the Divyashree Auto Garage in respect of left his vehicle in the said garage for repair. Even the P.W.2 has not produced any authorisation letter issued by the proprietor of the said Divyashree Auto Garage to show that, his employer has authorised him to give evidence on his behalf in the present petition in respect of repair of Vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-03-B-8888 owned by the Petitioner as well as the contents of Ex.P.9 to Ex.P.20. Furthermore, though the P.W.1 in his examination-in-chief has stated that, he has not claimed any compensation from his Insurance Company, in his cross-examination, he has clearly stated that, he doesn't know, in which Insurance Company, his vehicle was insured and he has not informed the Insurance Company regarding the accident and his vehicle was not surveyed after the accident and he has not produced survey report. Further, though the P.W.1 in his cross-
29 MVC No.6326/2012examination has stated that, he can produce the documents from his Insurance Company to show that, he has not received any amount from the insurer, he has not produced any documents in this regard. Even, the Petitioner has not produced any receipt for having paid the amount, which is shown in Ex.P.11. The same has also been clearly admitted in his cross-examination. Further, in Ex.P.13 to Ex.P.18, the name of the Petitioner and the Registration number of his vehicle are not mentioned. In this regard, the P.W.1 has shown his ignorance in his cross- examination. The Petitioner has also not produced any receipt to show the payment of amount shown in Ex.P.19 paid by him. The same has also clearly admitted by the P.W.1 in his cross- examination. He has further clearly admitted that, in Ex.P.20, his name and registration number of his vehicle are not appearing. He has further stated that, he has got tinkering for entire vehicle, which is contrary to the damages shown in Ex.P.5 Inspection Report. He has further clearly stated that, he has not produced job card to show that, he had left the vehicle in garage for repair. From this, it is made crystal clear that, the said Ex.P.11 to Ex.P.20 are not an authenticated documents to consider the amount spent by the Petitioner for repair of his Light Goods Vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-03-B-8888 at Divyashree Auto Garage, Bangalore, which caused in the road traffic accident. As this Tribunal has already observed about the production of Ex.P.7 Form No.45 relating to Light Goods Vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-03-B-8888, which was belonging to the Petitioner at the time of accident. No doubt, from the contents of the said document, it appears that, at the time of accident, the Petitioner 30 MVC No.6326/2012 was an owner of the said Light Goods Vehicle. But, on perusal of the terms and conditions of the said Form No.45, i.e., Goods Carriage Permit, it prima-facie appears that, the said vehicle authorised by the Permit to be used by the Petitioner as a goods vehicle otherwise than for hire within the area of Karnataka for the purpose of carrying the goods mentioned in the said permit. From this, it is made crystal clear that, at the time of accident, the said Light Goods Vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-03-B- 8888 was having a permit to be used within the area of Karnataka only. But, the said accident was taken place near Kuranguchavadi, GRT-Hotel, Bangalore By Pass Road, Salem, Tamilnadu. From this, it is made crystal clear that, the Petitioner, who is the owner of the said Light Goods Vehicle had violated the terms and conditions of Ex.P.7 Goods Carriage Permit. On this ground also, the Petitioner is not entitled for any compensation in respect of damages caused to his vehicle.
27. The R.W.1 has stated in her examination-in-chief that, their Company has obtained all documents from Police Station except copy of the driving licence from the Investigator and has also applied for driving licence extract in the RTO, they have not given the extract so far and the Respondent No.1 has not reported the alleged cause of action, particulars of the driver, injured, etc., as required under the terms and condition of the policy and under Section 134(c) of M.V.Act and therefore, the insured had knowingly entrusted the insured vehicle to the driver, who had no valid and effective driving licence and hence, they are not liable to indemnify the alleged liability, if any of the insured. In support of the said evidence of R.W.1, the Respondent 31 MVC No.6326/2012 No.2 has produced Ex.R.1 Insurance Company Policy relating to the offending Eicher Canter bearing Registration No.TN-63-R- 0723, which disclosed that, at the time of accident, the insurance policy of the said offending vehicle was valid and the offending vehicle was owned by the Respondent No.1 and the said offending vehicle is a Goods Carrying-Public Carrier. It is clearly mentioned in Ex.R.1 Insurance Policy that, no person including the insured provided that, a person driving holds an effective driving licence at the time of accident and is not dis-qualified from holding or obtaining such a licence provided also, that the person holding an effective learner's licence may also drive the vehicle, when not used for the transport of goods at the time of accident and that such a person satisfies the requirement of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. No doubt, in Ex.P.3 Charge Sheet, it is not alleged by the Investigating Officer that, at the time of accident, the driver of the said offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the said offending vehicle. But, the Respondent No.2 has produced Ex.R.2 No Objection Certificate issued by the RTO, Tirpur, North, which disclosed that, the driver of the said offending vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-63-R-0723 namely P.Ganesh S/o E.Pandi is having Light Motor Vehicle driving licence from 25.06.2002, which is valid for non-transport till 24.06.2011 and for transport till 13.09.2013. From this, it is made crystal clear that, at the time of accident, the driver of the said offending vehicle was only having a driving licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle. The Respondent No.2 has also produced Ex.R.3 R.C.Extract relating to the said offending vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-63-R-0723, 32 MVC No.6326/2012 which disclosed that, the said offending vehicle was registered on 21.08.2009 and valid up to 28.08.2012 and the said vehicle was owned by the Respondent No.1 and the clause of the said vehicle is Medium Goods Vehicle. From this, it is made crystal clear that, the driver of the said offending vehicle, who is having driving licence of Light Motor Vehicle, has not authorized to drive the said offending vehicle at the time of accident.
28. The R.W.1 in her cross-examination has clearly stated that, the said Ex.R.2 is relating to P.Ganeshan, which is consisting the particulars of his driving licence and based on the said driving licence, the said driver cannot drive the offending vehicle, on which, they issued insurance policy. The Respondent No.2 has also examined Superintendent in RTO Office of Tirpur as R.W.2, who has produced the True Copy of driving licence relating to P.Ganeshan, who was a driver of the said offending vehicle at the time of accident, which is marked at Ex.R.5. He has further stated that, Ex.R.5 is issued from their Office and as per Ex.R.5, only Light Motor Vehicle Transport vehicle authorized to drive and based on Ex.R.5 Driving Licence, the driver cannot drive the Medium Goods Vehicle and the driver, who is having the driving licence of Heavy Goods Vehicle can drive such Medium Goods Vehicle. Whatever, the contents noted in Ex.R.5 Driving Licence and Ex.R.2 No Objection Certificate, are clearly tallied with each other, which are relating to the driving licence of the driver of the said offending vehicle, namely P.Ganesh S/o E.Pandi. From this, it is further made crystal clear that, the driver, P.Ganesh S/o.E.Pandi, who was driving the said offending Eicher Canter bearing Registration No.TN-63-R-0723 at the time of accident, 33 MVC No.6326/2012 was only having a driving licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle, though the said offending vehicle was a Medium Goods Vehicle and as such, he is not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the said offending vehicle at the time of accident. The Respondent No.1, who is the owner of the said offending vehicle had entrusted the said offending insured vehicle to the driver, who had no valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. It is clearly proved by the Respondent No.2 by adducing acceptable material evidence, which is clear from the above said discussion. The violation of terms and conditions of Ex.R.1 Insurance Policy as well as Ex.P.7 Good Carriage Permit is clearly proved by the Respondent No.2 and Petitioner himself. Hence, even though the Petitioner has proved that, due to rash and negligent driving of the said offending Eicher Canter bearing Registration No.TN-63-R-0723 by its driver and in the said accident, Light Goods Vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-03-B- 8888 belonging to him suffered damages, he is not entitled for any compensation as prayed for in the petition. Therefore, the petition filed by the Petitioner is liable to be rejected. In view of the said reasons, the principles enunciated in the decisions cited by the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner are not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case on hand. On the other hand, the principles enunciated in the decisions cited by the Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2 are aptly applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case on hand. Accordingly, Issue No.2 is answered in the Negative.
34 MVC No.6326/201229. ISSUE NO.3 :- For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following, ORDER The petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, is hereby rejected.
No order as to costs.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 6th day of January, 2014.) (INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR) IX Addl.Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE PETITIONER :-
P.W.1 : Sri. Balan.M
P.W.2 : Imtiyaz
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED BY THE PETITIONER :-
35 MVC No.6326/2012 Ex.P.1 : True copy of FIR
Ex.P.2 : True copy of Charge Sheet
Ex.P.2(a) : Translation of Ex.P.2
Ex.P.3 : True copy of Spot Panchanama
Ex.P.3(a) : Translation copy of Ex.P.3
Ex.P.4 : True copy of Hand Sketch
Ex.P.5 : True copy of MVI Report
Ex.P.6 : Photographs (6 in numbers)
Ex.P.6(a) : CD
Ex.P.7 : Notarized copy of Form No.45
Ex.P.8 : Notarized copy of RC Book
Ex.P.9 : Fare Receipt
Ex.P.10 : Quotation
Ex.P.11 : Credit slip
Ex.P.12 : Labour Bill
Ex.P.13 to 17 : Invoices (5 in numbers)
Ex.P.18 : Cash bills ( 4 in numbers)
Ex.P.19 : Tax invoice dated 22.05.2012
Ex.P.20 : Cash Bill, Tax Invoice and Estimate
Bills ( 8 in numbers)
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE RESPONDENTS :-
R.W.1 : S.Prathibha W/o M.T.Harisha
R.W.2 : S.P.Selvam S/o V.R.Subbaiah
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED BY THE RESPONDENTS :-
36 MVC No.6326/2012Ex.R.1 : True copy of Insurance policy Ex.R.2 : No Objection certificate Ex.R.3 : R.C.Extract Ex.R.4 : Letter issued by Tripur North to this Hon'ble Court Ex.R.5 : Driving Licence Ex.R.6 : Authorisation Letter dated 04.09.2014 issued by Regional Transport Police (INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR) IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.37 MVC No.6326/2012
SCCH-7 AWARD BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA: BANGALORE CITY M.V.C.No.6326/2012 Sri. Balan.M. S/o Muthuswamy, Aged about 56 years, No.62, 1st Cross, Anjaneya Street, Sonnenahalli, Opp: Vivek Nagar Post, .... PETITIONER Bangalore-47.
(Owner of the vehicle bearing No.KA-03-B-8888) (By Sri.B.C.Venkatesh, Adv.,) V/s 38 MVC No.6326/2012
1. M.Shajahan S/o Mohammed Hanifa, Aged about years, No.20A/1, Sathyanarayana Nagar, Old Vinayagar Koil, Backside Padanur, Coimbatore Dist, Tamilnadu-641023.
(Owner of the vehicle No.TN-63-R-0723)
2. The Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., No.31, Ground Floor, TBR Towers, Near Mahaveer Jain College, Mission Road, Bangalore-560027.
...RESPONDENTS (Policy No.OG-12-9995-1803-00020526) (R1- By Sri.S.Nischal, Adv.,) (R2- By Sri.K.Prakash, Adv.,) WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the Petitioner/s above named U/s.166 of the M.V.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 Indira Mailswamy Chettiyar, IX Addl.Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM. Judge, Member, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri./Smt. Advocate for Petitioner/s and of Sri./Smt. Advocate for respondent.
39 MVC No.6326/2012ORDER The petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, is hereby rejected.
No order as to costs.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day
of 2014
MEMBER
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
METROPOLITAN AREA: BANGALORE.
By the
Petitioner/s Respondent/s
No.1 No.2
Court fee paid on
Petition
Court fee paid on Power
Court fee paid on I.A.,
Process
Pleaders Fee
Total Rs.
Decree drafted Scrutinized by MEMBER, MACT,
METROPOLITAN AREA: B'LORE
Decree Clerk Sheristedar
40 MVC No.6326/2012
41 MVC No.6326/2012
06.01.2015.
Judgment pronounced in open Court
(vide separate Order)
The petition filed by the Petitioner
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1989, is hereby rejected.
No order as to costs.
(INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR)
IX Addl.Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
42 MVC No.6326/2012 43 MVC No.6326/2012