Bangalore District Court
Mr.Abhishek S vs Is The Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Are ... on 29 November, 2022
KABC020085622019
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT BENGALURU.
(SCCH24)
DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022
Present: Miss.B.T.ANNAPOORNESHWARI
B.A., L.L.B., L.L.M.
C/c XXII ADDL., SCJ & ACMM,
MEMBER MACT,
BENGALURU.
MVC NO.1751/2019
PETITIONER: Mr.Abhishek S.,
S/o Shanmukappa
Aged about 21 years,
R/at No.13A,Kundagasvi,
Soraba Taluk,
Shimoga Dist.,
(By Sri.H.V.Kumara Swamy,
Advocate.)
V/S
RESPODENTS: 1. 1. United India Insurance
Co.Ltd.,
MVC HUB, Krishi Bhavana,
Hudson circle,
Nrupathunga road,
Bangalore,
MVC.1751/2019
2 SCCH-24
(Policy issued by its Sagara branch office
in Policy No.2404033118P109451246
date of validity from 23.10.2018 to
22.10.2019).
(By Smt.B.Shashirekha,
Advocate.)
2. Mr.Pradeep T.,
S/o Thimmappa,
Major,
R/at Hesare post, Sigga,
Soraba Taluk, Shimoga
District577401.
(Exparte)
.......
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed this petition under Sec.166 of the M.V.Act seeking compensation from the respondents for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident occurred on 06.11.2018.
2. In brief the case of the petitioner is as follows:
On 06.11.2018 at about 7.30 p.m., the petitioner was travelling as a pillion rider on motorcycle bearing MVC.1751/2019
3 SCCH-24 Reg.No.KA15S9747 which was ridden by one Mr.Santosh at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a road side tree, due to the tremendous impact, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries, immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital, Sagara, wherein first aid treatment was given and for further treatment he was shifted to Yenepoya Medical Hospital, wherein admitted as an inpatient and then he was shifted to NITTE Hospital, Mangalore, wherein treated as inpatient and thereafter he was shifted to KMC Hospital, where he was treated as inpatient. He was bed ridden and was under treatment and has spent nearly Rs.5,00,000/ towards medical and nourishment expenses and he has to undertake further treatment and has to incur future medical expenses also. He has suffered from permanent disability and he is not able to lead a normal life prior to the said accident. The Soraba Police have registered a case MVC.1751/2019 4 SCCH-24 against the rider of the motorcycle in Crime No.236/2018. The 1st respondent being the insurer and the 2nd respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to him.
3. In spite of due service of summons, the Respondent No.2 has remained absent and placed exparte and the Respondent No.1 insurance company has appeared through its counsel and filed written statement.
4. The respondent No.1 in its written statement have denied the averments of the petition as false and submitted that the petition is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties to this claim petition i.e., the owner of the two wheeler and the insurance company in which the petitioner was travelling as a pillionrider along with his friend/relative who was riding the said two wheeler and there is delay of 12 days in filing the FIR to the concerned MVC.1751/2019 5 SCCH-24 jurisdictional police station and admitted issuance of policy by its Baranch office J.C road, Sagar, Shimoga, to the 2nd respondent with respect of Honda motorcycle but subject to terms and conditions and submitted that there is non compliance of Section 134(c) and Section 158(6) of M.V. Act. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition against them.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings the following issues are framed:
1) Whether the petitioner proves that, he has sustained grievous injuries in the Road traffic accident that occurred on 06.11.2018 at about 7.30 .m., near Sagar Soraba main road, petrol bunk, Ulvai, Shivamogga, due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA15S9747 by its rider as alleged ?
2) Whether the Petitioner is entitled for Compensation? If so, what is the quantum?
From whom?
3) What order or award?
MVC.1751/2019 6 SCCH-24
6. The Petitioner in order to prove her case, he has examined himself as PW.1 and produced documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.12. Dr.Nagaraj B.N. -Orthopaedic surgeon at SOADS is examined as PW.2 and produced documents as per Exs.P.13 and P14. Sri.Udaya Kumar Office staff Administration at Justice K.S.Hegde Charitable Hospital, Mangalore, is examined as PW.3 and produced documents as per Exs.P15 to P17 and also examined Dr.Nagaraj Shet Assistant Medical Superintendent at Yenepoya Medical College Hospital, Mangalore, as PW.4 and produced documents as Exs.P18 to P20. On the other side, the respondent No.1 has got examined Sri.Gururaj PI, Badravathi Rural P.S., Badravathi, Shimoga District, as RW.1 and got marked photograph as per Ex.R1 and has also examined its administrative officer as RW.2 and got marked 2 documents as per Ex.R2 and R3.
MVC.1751/2019 7 SCCH-24
7. Heard arguments of both side and perused the materials on record. The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following decisions; (1) 2011 AIR SCW 1530: Ravi V. Badrinarayan & Ors., (2) 2013 Kant MAC 3 (Kant) : Srinivas Vs. United India Insurance Co.Ltd., & Ors., (3) ILR 1996 Kar 161: Meenakshamma Vs. Hanumanthappa, (4) ILR 2003 Kar 493: Mallamma Vs. Balaji & Ors., (5) MFA No.11380/2008 (MVINS) : National Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Smt.Gayathri, (6) 2011 ACJ 1: Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr., (7) 2014 (3) AKR 826:
Shivamurteppa v. The Managing Director, NEKRTC Central Office, Gulbarga, (8) 2005 ACJ 644:
M.V.Chowdappa Vs. Mohan Breweries & Distilleries Ltd., & Anr., (9) 2011 ACJ 1971: B.Kothandapani Vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., (10) 2012 ACJ 2694: K.Suresh Vs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd., & Anr., (11) 2012 ACJ 1459: Manoj Rathaur Vs. Anil Raheja & MVC.1751/2019
8 SCCH-24 Ors., (12) AIR 2000 Karnataka 202 : The New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Rajendra Singh & Ors.. The Counsel for the Respondent No.1 has relied upon decision reported in MFA No.31781/2010 with connected cases :
Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Shamaraya & Ors..
8. On appreciation of evidence on record, my findings on the above issues are as follows:
Issue No.1 : In the negative,
Issue No.2 : In the negative,
Issue No.3 : As per final order, for
the following;
REASONS
9. Issue No.1:
The Petitioner in order to prove that the accident was occurred due to the actionable negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA15S9747 has MVC.1751/2019 9 SCCH-24 examined himself as PW.1 and produced documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.7. He has specifically stated in his evidence that, he met with road traffic accident on 06.11.2018 at about 7.30 p.m., when he was traveling as a pillion rider on motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA15S9747 which was ridden by one Mr.Santosh at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a road side tree and caused accident and due to the said impact he sustained grievous injuries resulted in amputation of his right leg and caused permanent disability. The Respondent No.1 has denied the case of the petitioner as false and has contended that the petition is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties and delay in lodging the first information is material. In the crossexamination of PW.1 it is elicited that his brother lodged the first information, the owner of the two wheeler is Santhosh, the accident occurred at 7.11 p.m., after the accident his brother admitted him to Sagar Govt. Hospital MVC.1751/2019 10 SCCH-24 in ambulance, his brother was not present at the time of alleged accident, denies that he himself went to Govt.
Hospital as mentioned in Ex.P.8 and Santhosh did not admit to the hospital.
10. The PW.3/Udaya Kumar, has produced case sheet with xrays of Justice K.S. Hegde Charitable Hospital, Mangalore. In the crossexamination it is elicited that in MLC it is only mentioned as RTA, further it is mentioned that one Mr.Naveen brought the injured to the casualty.
11. The PW.4/Dr.Nagaraj Shet, has produced case sheet alongwith xrays of Yenepoya Medical College Hospital, Mangalore, and in the crossexamination it is elicited that he did not produce the MLC extract before this court.
12. In support of the defence the respondent No.1 has got examined the I.O. as RW.1. The RW.1 has deposed that the Santhosh/alleged rider of bike did not take any MVC.1751/2019 11 SCCH-24 treatment and hence his wound certificate is not produced. He further deposed that there is 11 days delay in lodging the first information, as per Ex.P.2 the rider ridden the bike in high speed with rash and negligent manner, he has not collected the MLC extracts of the hospital wherein both admitted, Santhosh sustained simple injuries but he did not take his statement. In the crossexamination it is brought out that as per Ex.R.1/photo the bike did not get damages to the front side, the mud guard only got damaged and in the chargesheet there is no mention that rider Santhosh got simple injuries.
13. The respondent No.1 has got examined its official as RW.2 who has deposed that the owner of the offending vehicle i.e. the second respondent has taken policy bearing No:2404033118P109451246 which is liability only policy with respect to Two wheeler, Honda Motorcycle bearing Reg.No:KA15S9747 and the said policy was valid from MVC.1751/2019 12 SCCH-24 23.10.2018 to 22.10.2019 and hence they are liable to satisfy the award amount even if awarded and produced the true copy of the policy. In the crossexamination of RW.1 it is elicited that the insurance policy was existed as on the date of accident which covered the risk of third party, as the policy is liability policy only and hence the petitioner is not covered under the policy.
14. The respondent No.2 mainly disputes the alleged accident and involvement of the offending vehicle and therefore, the documentary evidence needs to be appreciated in this regard. The alleged accident occurred on 06.11.2018 but the first information lodged on 17.11.2018 and the reason for the delay mentioned that as the petitioner was under treatment and the rider of the offending vehicle was being the relative and hence after discussion the first information was lodged. The Ex.P.2/first information was lodged by the brother of the MVC.1751/2019 13 SCCH-24 injured petitioner stating that his relative Santhosh did phone call and informed that while himself and injured petitioner were proceeding as rider and pillion rider on bike bearing No:KA15S9747 at 7.30 p.m. he lost control and hit to the tree situated near the Petrol Bunk and the Abhishaik did sustain grievous injury to right knee and was being taken to Sagar Hospital for treatment in 108 ambulance. But as per Ex.P.8/wound certificate issued by Sagar Govt. Hospital the petitioner/Abhishek, 19 years, came with history of 'RTA on 06.11.2018' and further mentioned as 'self', as per that the petitioner himself went to the hospital. If Santhosh was present at the alleged accident spot and was rider of the said bike then why he did not shift the injured to the hospital as stated in Ex.P.2, if Santhosh did shift the injured petitioner to the hospital then definitely his name MVC.1751/2019 14 SCCH-24 could have find place in Ex.P.8 but it is not mentioned there. Contrary to the averments made in Ex.P.2/first information the PW.1 in his evidence states that after the accident his brother admitted him to Sagar Govt. Hospital in ambulance and denies that he himself went to Govt. Hospital as mentioned in Ex.P.8. As per Ex.P.2 Santhosh took the injured petitioner to the hospital, as per the evidence of PW.1/petitioner his brother took him to the Sagar Govt. Hospital but the Ex.P.8 shows the injured himself came to hospital. These are all contrary to each other. If at all the alleged accident occurred at 7.30 p.m. as per Ex.P.2 or at 7.11 p.m. as per the evidence of PW.1 in his crossexamination then if the petitioner was taken to the Sagar Govt. Hospital in Ambulance then he must have taken to the hospital at 8.00 or 8.30 p.m. but the Ex.P.8/wound certificate clearly shows that the petitioner brought to the hospital on 6.11.2018 at 9.15 p.m., which MVC.1751/2019 15 SCCH-24 cannot be accepted, from this it appears that the accident was not occurred either at 7.11 p.m. or around 7.30 p.m. as alleged.
15. The Ex.P.3/spot sketch wherein the spot of accident shown exact beside the road on the left side where the tree is situated on SagarSoraba road in the mud road. The Ex.P.4/spot mahazar drawn on the same date of lodging the first information, wherein it is mentioned that three and half feet width mango tree branch of around 15 feet was fell obstructing on the mud road but there is not mention about the tree. The Ex.P.5/Seizure mahazar shows the right side bumper of the bike was bent and it was seized. The Ex.P.6/MVA report shows 'right side leg guard pressed inwards'. The Ex.P.8/wound certificate shows the history as RTA only but the details of the accident is not mentioned.
MVC.1751/2019 16 SCCH-24
16. If at all the bike hit to tree as alleged in the first information then definitely the bike could have got damages to its front side and admittedly as per evidence of RW.1 and as per Ex.R.1/photo, Ex.P.5/Seizure mahazar, the Ex.P.6/MVA report no damages occurred to the front side of the bike but only right side leg guard pressed inwards which raises a doubt about the alleged manner of accident because normally if the accident occurred as alleged then definitely there should have been damages to the front side of the bike and even if assumed that the bike got hit to the tree branch which fell on the mud road then there was no chance of rider being escaping without any kind of injuries and hence from this it is crystal clear that the petitioner was not the pillion rider but appears that he was riding the bike. Further, if at all Santhosh was riding the bike then definitely he could have also got injured MVC.1751/2019 17 SCCH-24 and admitted to the hospital and even though he sustained simple injuries also definitely he could have taken treatment in the hospital which is not the case in this case and from the evidence of PW.1 itself makes it clear that Santhosh was not at the spot as the PW.1 clearly stated that he was shifted to hospital by his brother. As per the PW.1 his brother shifted him to the hospital and if at all Santhosh being relative of the petitioner was riding the bike and only sustained simple injuries then why he did not shift the injured petitioner to the hospital which makes it clear that Santhosh was not the rider as claimed by the petitioner but the alleged manner of accident is twisted to suit the claim of the petitioner.
17. The Ex.P.16/case sheet maintained by Justice K.S. Hegde Charitable Hospital, Mangalore, pertaining to the MVC.1751/2019 18 SCCH-24 petitioner, wherein in the OPD record dated 12.11.2018 in the history column it is mentioned as 'alleged history of RTA on 07.11.2018 at Sorabanda at around 8.30pm'. As per the case of the petitioner he met with accident caused by the rider by hitting to a tree near a petrol bunk at Ulavi village around 7.30 p.m., then why the history in the case sheet/Ex.P.16 it written as above makes it clear that the accident was not occurred as claimed by the petitioner.
18. The Ex.P.19 is the case sheet pertaining to the petitioner maintained by Yenepoya Medical College Hospital, Mangalore, wherein the history sheet entered on 07.11.2018 at 11.30am shows 'the patient gives alleged history of road traffic accident yesterday evening at 8.00pm.'. In the very same case sheet in the discharge at request entry dated 11.11.2018 it is mentioned that 'the MVC.1751/2019 19 SCCH-24 patient presented with complaints of pain and swelling of the right leg and deformity of right knee joint following road traffic accident at around 8.00pm on 06.11.2018 near Shigga'. The petitioner has not produced the MLC register extract and police intimation of the Sagar Govt. Hospital which is the first hospital wherein the petitioner was admitted immediately after the accident. The very second hospital is the Yenepoya Medical College Hospital, Mangalore, wherein the petitioner admitted on 7.11.2018 at 3.00 a.m., and therefore the history mentioned in the case sheet of said hospital clearly shows that the accident occurred near Shigga.
19. As per the evidence of PW.3 he has produced the true copies of MLC and police intimation also alongwith the case sheet maintained by Justice K.S.Hegde Charitable Hospital. On perusal of the said MLC and police intimation MVC.1751/2019 20 SCCH-24 it is clear that the patient/petitioner admitted to the hospital with 'alleged history of RTA on 04.11.2018 at Sorbandha at around 8.30 p.m.', and the very same history is mentioned in the police intimation sent to Ullala police also.
20. The true copy of MLC extract available in case sheet of Yenepoya Medical College Hospital shows the history of patient as, "Alleged history of RTA on 06.11.2018 at around 08.00 p.m.", but the place of accident is not mentioned which is contrary to the history mentioned in their own case sheet. The said MLC entered on 07.11.2018 at 03.10 a.m. itself but no details of accident is mentioned clearly but very strangely in the police intimation dated 07.11.2018 entered at 5.13 a.m. the history is clearly mentioned as 'alleged history of RTA bike hitting a tree at around 8.00 p.m. MVC.1751/2019 21 SCCH-24 on 6.11.2018' and which was received by the Ullal police station police on 07.11.2018 itself by putting seal and signature. Nowhere in the case sheet or MLC, the aforesaid history is noted down or mentioned as that off mentioned in the police intimation then how the history is written in the said police station clearly as above that too on 07.11.2018 itself that too at 5.13 a.m. and which was also received by the Ullala police on the very same day itself. Then why the police did not register the case on the very same day itself even though they received the police intimation on the 07.11.2018 itself. This clearly points out that the police intimation is only created document to support the case of the petitioner and hence there was no case registered immediately after receipt as it was not received at all on 07.11.2018 itself.
MVC.1751/2019 22 SCCH-24
21. The another important document is discharge at request MLC issued by Yenepoya Medical College Hospital, Mangalore, produced at Ex.P.9, which shows in the column of presenting complaints as, "PATIENT PRESENTED WITH COMPLAINS OF PAIN AND SWELLING RIGHT KNEE AND RIGHT LEG ASSOCIATED WITH COMPLAINS OF PAIN AND SWELLING RIGHT KNEE AND RIGHT LEG ASSOCIATED WITH INABILITY TO BEAR WEIGHT FOLLOWING ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENT AT 8 PM ON 61118 AT SHIGGA. PATIENT INTIALLY MANAGED AT LOCAL HOSPITAL, CAME HERE FOR FURTHER MANAGEMENT." This further clearly shows that the MLC and police intimation documents are created documents to suit the claim of the petitioner and if at all the history as claimed by the petitioner is true then definitely it was also mentioned in the Ex.P.9 but it is not MVC.1751/2019 23 SCCH-24 the case. As per the Ex.P.9 the petitioner did sustain injuries in RTA occurred on 6.11.2018 at 8.00 p.m. at Shigga and not at 7.13 or 7.30 p.m. near petrol Bunk at Ulavi.
22. From the appreciation of evidence on record as discussed above makes it clear that the petitioner did not sustain injury as claimed in the alleged manner of accident but appears to have met with self accident but later with active collusion with the owner of the bike and the police has got created the documents only to get compensation from the insurance company which is evidence from the contrary documents.
23. I have perused the decisions relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner and with due respect to them of the view that they are not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case as this is a false case foisted MVC.1751/2019 24 SCCH-24 only to get compensation with active collusion with the concerned. Further, in the decision of Ravi Vs. Badrinarayana & Ors., the Hon'bl S.C. observed that mere delay in lodging the first information is not a criteria to reject the claim petition. In the second decision relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner also the Hon'ble H.C. set aside the dismissal of the claim petition as the reasons for dismissal was error committed by the Tribunal. The facts and circumstances of that cases and this case are different as in this case the facts of the alleged manner of accident is twisted and hence the delay in lodging the first information plays a vital role in this case in appreciating the evidence as a whole and if it is appreciated the conclusion arrived is that the the petitioner himself sustained injury in any other incident and not as alleged in this petition. The third decision with regard to failure of medical officer to report to police is no ground to deny the claim but the said decision MVC.1751/2019 25 SCCH-24 is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. In the fourth decision the Hon'ble H.C. observed that strict rules of Evidence Act need not be applied in a case of motor vehicle accident to prove rash and negligent driving, the said decision is also not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case as in this case the alleged manner of accident is twisted. The other decisions relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner are with regard to award of compensation and assessment of disability and with due respect to said decisions this Tribunal is of the view that they are not applicable to the present case as the manner of accident is twisted to get wrongful gain from the respondent No.1 and hence question of awarding compensation does not arise in this case.
24. The respondent No.1 has relied upon the decision which is referred above i.e. MFA 31781/2010 wherein the MVC.1751/2019 26 SCCH-24 Hon'ble Apex court observed in detail about the Act policy and package policy. As per the discussion made above the case of the petitioner itself is a false claim on the basis of twisted facts and hence question of awarding compensation and liability if any does not arise at all and hence the above decision is not considered which thrown light on the category of policy.
25. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in many cases that the doctor would not mention any thing which is irrelevant in the medical documents and would not take signature on document which is incorrect and courts have to consider the contents mentioned therein. Therefore, this court has to consider the recitals of wound certificate, discharge summary, case sheet and MLC and appreciated together. Admittedly, the information written in medical documents have come into existence very long before the first information and other police documents came into MVC.1751/2019 27 SCCH-24 existence. As their contents got more evidentiary value than the police documents and this court is bound to consider those documents. Further, at this point it is relevant to mention the decision of our own Hon'ble High Court report in "ILR 2014 KAR 3336 in the case of Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Smt.Kempamma and others" wherein it is observed that '...... the deceased was himself was riding the motorcycle and fell down on account of skid of the motorcycle. Thus, it is suffice to say that only with an intention to get compensation, the claimants and the respondent No.1 and the owner of the motorcycle colluded each other to dupe the Insurance Company. This is a clear cut case of self accident as the deceased himself fell down on account of skid of the motorcycle, while he himself was riding the motorcycle. The theory put forth by the claimants that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle by MVC.1751/2019 28 SCCH-24 respondent No.1 B.S. Hemanth Kumar is contrary to the evidence on record.', which is aptly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
26. Therefore, as per the discussions made above and appreciation of evidence the present case is a case of self fall or self accident is to be held by this Tribunal and the same is proved by the respondent No.1/Insurance Company in support of their defence. Under these circumstances, this Tribunal is of the opinion that, the petitioner has failed to prove that the accident was due to the rash and negligence of the rider of alleged motorcycle. Accordingly issue No.1 is held in the negative.
27. Issue No.2: While discussing the above issue, this Tribunal has already come to the conclusion that the Petitioner has failed to prove that the accident was occurred due to the MVC.1751/2019 29 SCCH-24 rash and negligence of the rider of the alleged offending vehicle. Therefore, when the Petitioner has failed to the prove the very negligence of the rider of the offending vehicle, the question of awarding compensation and determining the quantum of compensation does not arise for consideration at all. Accordingly, Issue No.2 is held in the negative.
28. Issue No.3: For the reasons and discussions made above and finding to the above issues, this Tribunal proceeds to pass the following: ORDER The petition filed by the Petitioner U/Sec.166 of IMV Act is dismissed.
No order as to cost.
MVC.1751/2019 30 SCCH-24 Draw decree accordingly.
(Typed to my dictation directly on the computer by the Stenographer, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 29th day of November 2022.) (Miss B.T.ANNAPOORNESHWARI) C/c XXII Addl. SCJ & ACMM Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined for petitioner:
PW.1 Mr.Abhishek S., PW.2 Dr.Nagaraj B.N. PW.3 Udaya Kumar PW.4 Dr.Nagaraj Shet
List of Documents marked for Petitioner:
Ex.P.1 True Copy of FIR
Ex.P.2 True Copy of Complaint
Ex.P.3 True Copies of Sketch
Ex.P.4 True Copy of Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.5 True Copy of Vehicle seizer mahazar
Ex.P.6 True Copy of IMV report
Ex.P.7 True copy of Chargesheet
Ex.P.8 True copy of Wound certificate
MVC.1751/2019
31 SCCH-24
Ex.P.9 Discharge Summaries (2 in no's)
Ex.P.10 Certified issued by Malnad Wines
Ex.P.11 Photographs (4 in nos.) with CD
Ex.P.12 Medical bills (95 in nos.)
Ex.P.13 Clinical Report
Ex.P.14 Xray
Ex.P.15 Authorization letter
Ex.P.16 Case sheet
Ex.P.17 Xrays (3 in Nos.)
Ex.P.18 Authorization letter
Ex.P.19 Case sheet
Ex.P.20 Xrays (6 in nos.)
List of Witnesses examined for respondent/s:
RW.1 Sri.Gururaj RW.2 Smt.Manjula R.
List of documents exhibited for Respondent:
Ex.R.1 Photograph
Ex.R.2 Authorization letter
Ex.R.3 True copy of policy
(Miss B.T.ANNAPOORNESHWARI)
C/c XXII Addl. SCJ & ACMM
Bengaluru.
MVC.1751/2019
32 SCCH-24
22.11.2022
PHVK
R1BS
R2Ex For Judgment by 29.11.2022
For Judgment
C/c XXII ASCJ & ACMM.,
29.11.2022
PHVK
R1SK
R2Ex
For Judgment
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT VIDE SEPARATE ORDER ORDER The petition filed by the Petitioner U/Sec.166 of IMV Act is dismissed.
No order as to cost.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Miss B.T.ANNAPOORNESHWARI) C/c XXII Addl. SCJ & ACMM MVC.1751/2019 33 SCCH-24 Bengaluru.
AWARD BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA: BANGALORE CITY (SCCH24) MVC NO.1751/2019 PETITIONER: Mr.Abhishek S., S/o Shanmukappa Aged about 21 years, R/at No.13A, Kundagasvi, Soraba Taluk, Shimoga Dist., (By Sri.H.V.Kumara Swamy, Advocate.) V/S RESPODENTS: 1. United India Insurance Co.Ltd., MVC HUB, Krishi Bhavana, Hudson circle, Nrupathunga road, Bangalore.
(Policy issued by its Sagara branch office in Policy No.2404033118P109451246 date of validity from 23.10.2018 to 22.10.2019).
(By Smt.B.Shashirekha, Advocate.) MVC.1751/2019 35 SCCH-24
2. Mr.Pradeep T., S/o Thimmappa, Major, R/at Hesare post, Sigga, Soraba Taluk, Shimoga District577401.
(Exparte) WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the Petitioner/s above named U/sec.166 of the M.V.C. Act, praying for the compensation of Rs.
(Rupees ) for the injuries sustained by the Petitioner/Death of in a Motor Accident by Vehicle No. WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up on for final disposal before Miss. B.T.Annapoorneshwari, C/c XXII Addl.Judge, Member, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for Petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. Advocate for Respondent.
MVC.1751/2019 36 SCCH-24 ORDER The petition filed by the Petitioner U/Sec.166 of IMV Act is dismissed.
No order as to cost.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this 29th day of November 2022.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA BANGALORE.
MVC.1751/2019 37 SCCH-24 Memorandum of costs incurred in this case.
By the __________________________________ Petitioner/s Respondent Court fee paid on petition 1000 Court fee paid on Powers 0000 Court fee paid on I.A. Process Pleaders Fee _________________________________ Total Rs.
_________________________________ Decree Drafted Scrutinised by MEMBER, M.A.C.T.METROPOLITAN:
BANGALORE Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR