Bangalore District Court
Mr. Shivabeeraiah vs United India Ins. Co.Ltd on 18 October, 2016
BEFORE THE COURT OF XXI ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES
JUDGE AND THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
(SCCH-23) AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF OCTOBER 2016
PRESENT: SRI.N.N.YALAVATTI, Bcom, LLB(Spl),
XXI ADDL. SCJ & XIX ACMM
MEMBER - MACT
BANGALORE
M.V.C No.3915 of 2014
PETITIONER: Mr. Shivabeeraiah,
S/o. Akkibeeraiah @ Chikkabeeraiah,
Aged about 43 years,
R/at: No.113, 7th Cross,
6th Main, Vinayakanagar,
Kengeri Satellite Town,
Bangalore-560060.
(By Sri.B.S.Devaraju, Advocate)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS: 1. United India Ins. Co.Ltd.,
T.P.Claims Hub,
5th & 6th Floors,
Krushi Bhavan,
Hudson Circle,
Bangalore-560002.
( Policy No.0705813113 P107218533
period of Insurance from 12.02.2014
to 11.02.2015)
2 MVC.No.3915 of 2014
SCCH-23
(By Sri.B.C.Shivanne Gowda,Advocate)
2. M/s. Saphire Motors Pvt.Ltd.,
No.108, Sy. No.36/2A,
Pattanagere,
BMS Farms,
13th KM, Mysore Road,
Bangalore-5600059.
(By Sri.R.Rakesh Kumar-Advocate)
****
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed the present petition under Sec.166 of M.V. Act for compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- from the respondents.
2. That on 20.03.2014 at about 11.30 a.m., in front of Aravinda Garments, Mysore to Bangalore road, at Kengeri the driver of the Car bearing reg. (Temporary registration New Car) No. KA-41-TC-NT-02 belonging to respondent No.2 insured with respondent No.1, driven it rash and negligently and dashed against first median and then against the petitioner who was standing on median for crossing the road, as a result of which, the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous head injury, he was 3 MVC.No.3915 of 2014 SCCH-23 shifted to BGS Global hospital, after taking first aid at Rajarajeshwari hospital, He was inpatient at BGS hospital as well as Shreya Hospital and underwent surgeries for his head injury. He has spent huge amount for his medical treatment. The police have registered the case against the driver of the offending vehicle and filed charge sheet after completion of usual investigation. The petitioner was earning Rs.18,000/-p.m. from his auto driver work, due to injuries sustained in the accident, he is suffering from physical permanent disability and unable to do work as he was working prior to the accident and sustained loss of income. He is entitle amount as claimed in the petition and requested to allow claim petition.
3. In response to the notice, the respondent No.1 and 2 have appeared through their counsel and resisted the case of the petitioner by filing their objection. The respondent No.1 being the insurance company has contended, the claim petition filed by claimant is on imaginary ground, the compensation claimed by the 4 MVC.No.3915 of 2014 SCCH-23 claimant is excessive, exorbitant. The respondent No.1 admits having insured the Hundai Xcent car bearing No.KA-41-TC-NT/02 in terms of the transit policy of insurance. The respondent No.1 has contended that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident. The owner of the offending vehicle has violated the Rule 39-43 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules. The claimant has created documents for claiming higher compensation. The respondent No.1 denied the monthly earnings of the petitioner. The respondent No.1 has contended that the liability of respondent No.1 is limited to sum of Rs.8,00,000/- only as agreed under the contract of insurance. This accident was occurred on the negligence of the claimant. Therefore the claim petition filed by the claimant may be dismissed.
4. The respondent No.2 being the owner of the offending vehicle has asserted in their objection as the driver of the offending vehicle had valid and effective driving licence and offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.1. The policy 5 MVC.No.3915 of 2014 SCCH-23 was in force. The respondent No.2 is a dealer of Hundai motor vehicle. The company has sold the vehicle in the name and style of Shafi motor Pvt., Ltd., as its dealer. He has denied all the averments of the claim petition. The respondent No.1 contending that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the car solely by following all traffic rules. The petitioner himself was trying to cross the road without following traffic rules. Therefore this accident was occurred. In addition to this, respondent No.2 has contended that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.1 and policy was in force. Therefore the respondent No.1 has to indemnify the respondent No.2 for payment of compensation and requested to dismiss the claim petition.
5. In order to prove the case of the petitioner, the wife of the petitioner got herself examined as PW-1 on behalf of her husband. PW-2 to 4 are examined on their behalf. Ex-P1 to 29 are got marked. In order to prove the defence of the respondent No.1 and 2, the official of respondent No.1 and 2 are examined as RW-1 to 4 and Ex-R1 to 19 got marked.
6 MVC.No.3915 of 2014
SCCH-23
6. I have heard the lengthy argument from petitioner and the respondent No.1 and 2 .
7. On the basis of the above pleading this tribunal has framed the following issues:
1. Whether the petitioner proves that the accident dated: 20.03.2014 at about 11.30 a.m., near Aravinda Garments, Mysore road, Kengeri, Bangalore, was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Car bearing reg. No.KA-41-TC-NT-02 and that he has sustained the injuries due to the said accident?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. What Order or award?
8. On the basis of materials available on record my finding on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1: Affirmative Issue No.2: Yes he is entitle for Rs.26,51,246/- from respondent No.1 insurance company.7 MVC.No.3915 of 2014
SCCH-23 Issue No.3: As per final order for the following:
REASONS
9. Issue No.1: The wife of the claimant got herself examined as PW-1 as her husband is unable to come before the court for giving evidence and he is not in a position to talk properly. No doubt she is not an eye witness to the accident. The petitioner has produced copy of FIR, complaint, spot mahazar, IMV report which is marked at Ex-P1 to Ex-P4. The respondent No.1 and 2 are not seriously disputing the alleged accident. The Kengeri police have registered the case based on the statement of one Rashmi W/o Ramakrishna who was present on the spot. I have carefully scrutinized the copy of FIR and complaint which are marked together at Ex-P1. The petitioner has produced copy of charge sheet at Ex-P6. All above documents are prima- facie sufficient to prove the accident. As per the law laid down in (1) 2004(1) KAR, KLJ 498 (DB) & (2) 2003 (2) TAC 103( Madras) documents of criminal case are sufficient to prove accident. In the case on hand also the petitioner has produced 8 MVC.No.3915 of 2014 SCCH-23 FIR, complaint, spot mahazar with sketch and copy of charge sheet. All these documents are sufficient to prove that the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The witness of the respondent No.1 and 2 are not eye witness to the accident. Therefore their evidence is not helpful to prove their defence. On the other hand, the petitioner has produced numerous documents to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. These documents are sufficient to say that the petitioner has sustained head injury in the accident. Hence I answered issue No.1 accordingly.
10. Issue No.2: PW-1 is the wife of petitioner, she gave her evidence on behalf of her husband as her husband who is the petitioner is unable to come and give evidence and he is suffering from slurring in his speech. I have gone through the evidence of PW-4 who is a Neurosurgeon. As per the evidence of doctor, he has examined patient on 7-7-2015 for slurred speech and patient could not understand the smell. I have carefully scrutinized the cross examination of PW-4 along with PW-1. In addition to 9 MVC.No.3915 of 2014 SCCH-23 evidence of PW-4, I have carefully gone through the discharge summary, case sheet, x-ray films, all documents and oral evidence reveals that the petitioner was treated as inpatient at BGS hospital from 20-3-2014 to 4-4-2014, he was operated for a head injury i.e., bifrontal craniotomy for bifrontal contusions and diffuse cerebral oedema on 20-3-2014. Again he was admitted from 21-7-2014 to 25-7-2014. He underwent bone flap replacement (2nd surgery) on 25-7-2014. Again he was inpatient from 4-4-2014 to 25-7-2014 in Shreya hospital, because, the BGS hospital is costlier than Shreya hospital. All the above hospital records, oral evidence of PW-1, 4 are sufficient to say that because of the accident, the petitioner become disabled and he has been crippled, he is unable to resume his work. The permanent disability sustained by the petitioner would come in the way of petitioner enjoying his normal life. The evidence of PW-1, 4 and discharge summary including case sheet are sufficient to say that, he is virtually deadwood and leading life on total dependency. He is literally invalid. Therefore it is very hard to contend that he can still continued with avocation to earn, 10 MVC.No.3915 of 2014 SCCH-23 because he was working as a auto driver. For driver of the vehicle, mental status must be good and stable. But in the case on hand, the evidence of PW-1 and 4 and hospital records reveals that, he sustained loss of partial memory, he is suffering from slurring in his speech and there is a watering in his right eye. The evidence of PW-4 reveals that, he is not only suffering from partial memory, he is also suffering disability, cognitive and behavioral deficit. He has to undergo 10 -15 rehabilitation courses for improvement, but the discharge summary issued by the BGS hospital reveals that the flap has been preserved in the hospital operation theater and underwent surgical tracheostomy on 24-3-2014. This itself is sufficient to say that the petitioner sustained head injury and lost his memory. No doubt, PW-4 has stated that the petitioner suffered 41% whole-body permanent disability. With this disability he cannot do the driving work. So we can easily say that the petitioner is suffering from 100% disability on his body and he cannot work as a driver of the auto. Therefore he is entitle loss of his future earnings. 11 MVC.No.3915 of 2014
SCCH-23
11. PW-1 and petitioners have pleaded in their pleadings as well as in their oral evidence as the petitioner was earning Rs.18,000/-p.m. from his auto driver. The petitioner has produced copy of driving licence and RC book of his auto. Other than these documents, he has not produced any documents to prove his exact income. During the course of argument, learned advocate for the petitioner relied on a decision reported in 2016 (1) AKR 39 and submits that the notional income of the petitioner may be fixed for Rs.9,000/-p.m. I have gone through the decision relied on by petitioner. It is true that, the claimant of the above decision was a Mason, he did not produced any documents to prove his income. Therefore Hon`ble High Court of Karnataka has fixed his income notionally at Rs.9,000/-p.m. The age of the Mason was 40, but in the case on hand, the petitioner is not a Mason, he is an auto driver aged about 43 (copy of DL). The Mason was not in need to spent any amount towards fuel charges or vehicle maintenance. Any how the Mason was also doing a coolie work and a Mason earning was Rs.300/- per day. So we have to take Rs.300/- per day as income of the driver of 12 MVC.No.3915 of 2014 SCCH-23 the auto. Out of this, we have to deduct Rs.50/ towards fuel charges, oil and other minor maintenance to his vehicle. So the net income of the auto driver per day would become Rs.250/- per day. Therefore the total monthly net income would become Rs.7,500/-. Therefore the income of the claimant is notionally assessed at Rs.7,500/-p.m. The claimant is 43 years old, at the cost of their reputation, once again I wanted to say that as per the discharge summary, evidence of PW-1, 4 and case sheet, the petitioner is virtually deadwood and leading life on total dependency and he is literally invalid. The permanent disability sustained by the petitioner would come in the way of petitioner`s normal life and movement is drastically impaired and arrested. Under these circumstances, we have to say that, the petitioner is suffered 100% functional disability. Under such condition, he cannot do driver work. Therefore he sustained loss of future earnings. Admittedly he is aged 43, the appropriate multiplier is
14. His notional monthly income is Rs.7,500/-. So loss of future earnings would workout Rs.7,500 x 12 x 14=Rs.12,60,000/-. 13 MVC.No.3915 of 2014
SCCH-23
12. The permanent disability sustained by the petitioner would come in the way of petitioner enjoying his normal life. The petitioner freedom of movement is drastically arrested, the petitioner has to live his rest of life frustrations, disappointment, unhappiness, discomforts, in convenience and slurring in his speech. Therefore while assessing the depriving of amenities of life, we should take the account gravity and deprivation. The Hon`ble High Court of Karnataka has granted Rs.1,00,000/- in a citation cited by the petitioner. Looking into facts and circumstances of the case and gravity of the injury, it is just and proper to grant Rs.75,000/- under the head loss of amenities, frustration, disappointment, unhappiness, inconvenience and loss of partial memory and slurring speech.
13. I have already discussed in my judgment that evidence of PW-1, 4, discharge summary and case sheet are sufficient that the petitioner was inpatient from 20-3-2014 to 14-4-2014 and underwent operation for head injury. Again he underwent surgery for bone flopping replacement on 25-7-2014 totally he was 14 MVC.No.3915 of 2014 SCCH-23 inpatient from 30-3-2014 to 25-7-2014. As per the evidence of PW-4, the decrease in the memory power of the petitioner is a moderate deficiency, cognitive functional and neurobehavioral function are also deficiency, there is a slurring in his speech. All these surrounding circumstances are shows that the petitioner has sustained head injury and suffered lot while in hospital and after discharge from the hospital. The Hon`ble High Court of Karnataka has awarded in a citations cited by the petitioner as Rs.2,00,000/-, but the claimant in that decision has sustained grievous injury i.e., his spinal card was damaged, but in case on hand, petitioner has sustained head injury. Therefore, I awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and sufferings.
14. I have gone through the entire evidence placed before the court along with case sheet, discharge summary. The petitioner was inpatient in both hospital twice and underwent surgery. The discharge summary and case sheet are sufficient to say that he has spent huge amount for his medical expenses. The petitioner has produced 156 medical bills amounting to 15 MVC.No.3915 of 2014 SCCH-23 Rs.11,01,246/-. The advocate for the insurance company strenuously contending before me that, bill No.143-148 and 157 in Ex-P16 are not genuine documents and there is no corresponding documents like prescriptions. I have given careful consideration on these documents. But these documents are not a fake documents. The bill No.154 of Ex-P16 is a hospital bill, other documents are minor medical bills to show that the medicines are purchased. Apart from this, I have carefully scrutinized each document i.e., from first document to last document, I found that, these are all genuine documents. Therefore the petitioner is entitle Rs.11,01,246/- towards medical expenses.
15. In addition to this, petitioner is entitle to Rs.20,000/- under the head of attendant charges and he is entitle Rs.20,000/- loss of earnings during laid-up period and Rs.25,000/- towards food, nourishment, conveyance charges. 16 MVC.No.3915 of 2014
SCCH-23
16. The petitioner has to take treatment, continuously as lifelong and one surgery is required to his brain, cost of the surgery is around Rs.6,00,000/-. But there is no materials except her chief examination. No doubt, follow-up treatment is required because, he has sustained head injury. Considering the discharge summary, documents, case sheet and cross examination of PW-4, it is just and proper to award Rs.50,000/- under the head of future medical expenses.
In all, I am going to award Rs.26,51,246/-under following heads.
1 Loss of future earning Rs.12,60,000/-
2 Loss of amenities, Rs.75,000/-
frustration, disappointment, unhappiness, inconvenience and loss of partial memory and slurring speech.
3 Pain and sufferings Rs.1,00,000/-
4 Medical expenses Rs.11,01,246/-
5 Attendant charges Rs,20,000/-
6 Loss of earnings during Rs.20,000/-
17 MVC.No.3915 of 2014
SCCH-23 laid-up period 7 Food, nourishment, Rs.25,000/-
conveyance charges 8 Future medical Rs.50,000/-
expenses
Total Rs.26,51,246/-
17. Now, moot question before us is who is liable to pay compensation? During the course of argument, the learned Senior Advocate of respondent No.1 strenuously contending before me that Ex-R1 is issued only to the car by name Hundai Varna. But the offending vehicle is Hundai Xcent. In addition to this, the learned Senior counsel drawn my attention on the cross examination of RW-1 and evidence of RW-2 and 3 and submits that, the RW-1 himself admitting that the policy was issued for the car by name Hundai Varna and drawn my attention on Ex-R2 and Ex-R14. The advocate for the respondent No.1 submits that, cross examination of RW-1 and evidence of RW-2 and 3 including Ex-R2 and 14 are sufficient to dismiss the claim petition filed against the respondent No.1. The advocate for the respondent No.2 strenuously contending before me that the 18 MVC.No.3915 of 2014 SCCH-23 respondent No.1 has issued policy based upon the trade certificate under rule of Central Government Rules of IMV Act. The Ex-R1 is coverage policy of offending vehicle. It is also comes under the LMV. In support of his argument, he has relied on a decision reported in AIR 1987 SC 1184 and AIR 2009 SC 24. The advocate for the petitioner vehemently argued that the respondent No.1 is trying to escape from its liability by saying that the policy is not covering the risk. He draw my attention on Ex-R1 along with other documents placed before the court and submits that respondent No.1 is liable to pay compensation amount.
18. I have given careful consideration to the points urged by both side. First we shall know what is the meaning of trade certificate, because Ex-R1 has been issued based upon trade certificate. Rule II (g) of Central motor vehicle Rules 1989 defines trade certificate, it means a certificate issued by the registering authority under Rule 35. Now we shall turn our attention on Section 39 of IMV Act. As per Section 39 of IMV Act registration of the vehicle to ply on the public road is must. It means the owner of the every vehicle shall register his vehicle under IMV Act 19 MVC.No.3915 of 2014 SCCH-23 for plying the same on the road. But Rule 33 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules is exception to the Section 39 of IMV Act. A dealer shall be exempted from the necessity of registration subject to condition that, he obtains trade certificate. Rule 34 of the Rules speaks that application and issuing of trade certificate. For the sake of convenience, it is better to extract Rule 34 of Rules which is as follows:-
Trade certificate-
(1) An application for the grant or renewal of a trade certificate shall be made in Form 16 and shall be accompanied by the appropriate fee as specified in rule 81.
(2) Separate application shall be made for each of the following classes of vehicles, namely:-
(a) motorcycle
(b) invalid carriage
© light motor vehicle
(d) medium passenger motor vehicle
(e) medium goods vehicle
(f) heavy passenger motor vehicle
(g) heavy goods vehicle
(h) any other motor vehicle of a specified
description
20 MVC.No.3915 of 2014
SCCH-23
19. So it is crystal clear that, from 34 (1) and (2) of the Rules that the registering authority has to issue trade certificate only for the Class of vehicles, but not models. Rule 34 (2) of the Rules specify to issue trade certificate to which class of vehicles.
For our case Rule 34(2) is applicable, it is Light Motor Vehicle. So it is crystal clear from the statute that the registering authority has to give trade certificate to the owners for dealing their business only Clauses of vehicles, but not models. The trader has to file application under form No.16 © Rule 34(1) and registering authority has to issue trade certificate under form No.17. Rule 35(1). Para 6 of form No.16 and Para 4 of para 17 speaks about applying trade certificate for class of vehicles and issuing the trade certificate for class of the vehicles, but not models. Ex-R6 is the trade certificate of the offending vehicle. This fact is not at all disputed on the either side. Ex-R1 which is the insurance policy has been issued based upon Ex-R6. Ex-R1 insurance policy issued road risk policy based on trade certificate. So one thing is crystal clear that the insurance company ought to have issued 21 MVC.No.3915 of 2014 SCCH-23 insurance policy based upon trade certificate only for class of vehicles, but not on models.
20. Before going to assess all these documents, we shall turn our attention on para 3 of the written statement of respondent No.1. It is better to extract entire para 3 which reads as follows:-
`` The said accident occurred on 20-3-2014 at about 11.30 a.m. and was hit by the insured unregistered New Hundai Xcent car bearing No.KA- 41-TC-NT/02. The FIR, sketch, mahazar, IMV report and charge sheet clearly shows that the insured vehicle involved in the accident is a unregistered New Hundai X-cent car bearing No.KA-41-TC-NT-/02. The concerned jurisdictional Kengeri traffic police have filed charge sheet against the driver of the said unregistered New Hundai Xcent car bearing No.KA- 41-TC-NT/02 after thorough investigation made by them. The said unregistered New Hundai Xcent car bearing No.KA-41-TC-NT/02 was insured with the 1st respondent and the policy was in force at the time of accident.....22 MVC.No.3915 of 2014
SCCH-23
21. So it is crystal clear from para 3 of the written statement that respondent No.1 has admitted having insured the Hundai car bearing registration No.KA-41-TC-NT-02 in terms of Transit policy insurance. I shall made myself clear here that the respondent No.1 is trying to getout form this admission by filing IA under order 6 rule 17 of CPC for amendment of the pleadings of respondent No.1. But this court has dismissed the said IA after hearing the argument from all side. So we have to consider the entire pleadings of respondent No.1 as it is.
22. As I have already stated in my above judgment that, the respondent No.1 has categorically admitting the policy issued to Hundai car bearing No.KA-41-TC-NT-02. It is not in dispute that this trade certificate was in force and Ex-R1 insurance policy was also in force on the date of accident. It is settled law that the law is not permitting to the parties to travel beyond the limits of pleadings. It is the settled law that in the absence of plea, no amount of evidence is led to carrying in relation there to can be 23 MVC.No.3915 of 2014 SCCH-23 look into. The evidence without pleading is not at all evidence. So para 3 of written statement of respondent No.1 is binding upon respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 cannot go beyond from para
3. Because the respondent No.1 did not challenge rejection of IA filed for amendment of pleadings before Hon`ble High Court.
23. With this background, we shall who is liable to pay compensation amount. The senior Advocate of the respondent No.1 strenuously contending before me that, the policy was issued for the car by name Hundai Varna, but not Hundai Xcent. Therefore respondent No.1 is not liable to pay compensation in addition to this, he draw my attention on Ex-R2 ad 14 along with cross examination of respondent No.1. I do found some force in their argument. Some minor discrepancies are there in relating to receiving of vehicles. Such minor discrepancies are bound to be occurred when witness deposing naturally. But Ex-R2 and 14 speaks that the offending vehicle was removed from the factory for loading at Chenani on 18-3-2014. Ex-R14 speaks that the 24 MVC.No.3915 of 2014 SCCH-23 offending vehicle was loaded on 19-3-2014 and same was delivered to respondent No.2. These minor discrepancies would not sufficient to disbelieve their evidence. It is true that the RW-1 has admitting that respondent No.1 has issued Ex-R1 to the car by name Hundai Verna. But in my opinion, it is stray sentence and it is not amounting to admission. We have to consider his entire evidence and law is not permitting to take sentence here and there. So this stray sentence is not comes under the meaning of admission. Because when statue is barred to issue insurance policy in respect of models of the car. The respondent No.1 is not permitted to exercise its power beyond the statute.
24. The advocate for the petitioner and respondent No.2 draw my attention on the cross examination o f RW-3 who is Admn. Officer of respondent No.1 and submits that the respondent No.1 is trying to escape from its liability by telling that the proposal form of the respondent No.2 for issuing Ex-R1 is misplaced. If we carefully scrutinized cross examination of RW-3 line by line, it reveals that, he had a knowledge about issuing the policy based on the trade certificate under Rule 35. Inspite of it, 25 MVC.No.3915 of 2014 SCCH-23 he has deposed at page 4 as `` they have issued policy for particular model on the requisition of client``. When such being the case whey he has failed to produce the requisition of respondent No.2 which was submitted by him for issuing of Ex- R1. This itself is sufficient to show that respondent No.3 knew that insurance company has to issue policy based upon the trade certificate for a particular class of vehicle, but not on the models. RW-1 and 4 are one and the same and he is a legal executive of respondent No.2. He has produced 5 policies obtained based upon trade certificate, trade certificate are marked at Ex-R16 to 19, but the relevant insurance policies are not marked, but they are in file. If we peruse those insurance policies, we came to know that the respondent No.1 has issued those policies in the name of Hundai LMV. The respondent No.1 has issued Ex-R1 based upon Ex-R6. The respondent No.1 had ought to have got typed in column by name make as LMV as got typed in other policies. Instead of typing Hundai LMV, but wrongly typed Hundai Verna. The respondent No.1 is trying to take this error from escaping from liability. This is a minor error, the statue is not 26 MVC.No.3915 of 2014 SCCH-23 permitted to issue such type of policies. Admittedly Hudai Verna car is also comes under the meaning of LMV. As per the evidence of RW-2, this policy can be utilized for many times till the date of its lapse. Therefore I do not find much force in the argument of Senior Counsel on behalf of respondent No.1.
25. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons assigned in the judgment and admissions given by the RW-3 and para 3 of the written statement of respondent No.1 are sufficient to hold that Ex-R1 is the policy pertaining to the trade certificate marked at Ex-R6. Therefore the insurance policy was in force.
26. It has come in the evidence of RW-4 that, this accident was occurred when the offending vehicle was taken for free delivery checkup on 20-3-2014. RW-4 has produced Ex-R8, 9 which are form No.19 to show that they are maintaining register in 27 MVC.No.3915 of 2014 SCCH-23 compliance of IMV rules. So the question of violation of Rule 40 does not arise at all.
27. The advocate for the respondent No.1 raised another question in relating to the limits of the liability of respondent No.1, Again I do not find force in the argument of advocate for respondent No.1. Here we shall turn our attention on Ex-R1 which is the certified copy of policy issued from the office of respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 did not raise their little finger against the genuineness of contents of Ex-R1, because this is a copy got issued from respondent No.1 office. Just we shall turn our attention on the column of `` Limits of Liability``. It has been written in this column as `` Under section II-I (i)-Death or bodily injury in respect of any one accident-As per Motor Vehicles Act 1988, Under section II-I (ii)-Damage to Third Party Property in respect of any one claim or series of claims arising out of one event Rs.7,50,000/-.`` As per this limits of liability column limits is only pertaining to the damage to 3rd party 28 MVC.No.3915 of 2014 SCCH-23 property not the death or bodily injured in respect of any one accident. So the liability on respondent No.1 is not limited to some of Rs.8,00,000/-. Therefore respondent No.1 is liable to pay entire awarded amount as the insurer of the offending vehicle becauseEx-R1 policy was in force on the date of accident. The respondent No.2 who is the owner of the offending vehicle as complied Rule 39-43 by maintaining registers. The driver of the offending vehicle had a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident. The respondent No.1 has produced records in that respect. Hence respondent No.1 has to indemnify the respondent No.2 in payment of the compensation. Hence I answered point No.2 accordingly.
28. Issue No.3 - In view of the discussion made supra, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER The claim petition U/Sec., 166 of Motor Vehicles Act filed by the petitioner is hereby allowed in part with cost.29 MVC.No.3915 of 2014
SCCH-23 The petitioner is awarded total compensation of Rs.26,51,246/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the deposit of the amount in the tribunal.
Respondent Nos.1 & 2 are jointly and severally to pay compensation to the petitioner.
The 1st respondent shall deposit the said compensation amount into the Tribunal within 60 days from the date of this order.
Out of the compensation amount 60% to be deposited in FD in the name of petitioner for a period of five years in any of the Nationalised Bank or Scheduled Bank free from encumbrance.
Further out of the remaining 40% compensation to be released to the petitioner with interest.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1000/-
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcript thereof is corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 18th day of October 2016) (N.N.YALAVATTI) XXI ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, BANGALORE.30 MVC.No.3915 of 2014
SCCH-23 ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER PW-1: Smt. Meenakshi PW-2: Devaraj PW-3: D.W.Stephen PW-4: Dr.Nagesh S.A. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER Ex.P1: FIR with complaint Ex.P2: Spot Mahazar Ex.P3: Spot sketch Ex.P4: IMV Report Ex.P5: Wound Certificate Ex.P6: Charge Sheet Ex.P7: Discharge Summary Ex.P8: Discharge Summary Ex.P9: Discharge Summary Ex.P10: Driving Licence Ex.P11: RC Ex.P12: Certificate Ex.P13: Loan Pass book Ex.P14: Adhaar card Ex.P15: 20 Lab reports Ex.P16: 156 Medical Bills amounting to Rs.11,01,246/- Ex.P17: 63 Prescriptions 31 MVC.No.3915 of 2014 SCCH-23 Ex.P18: Photo with CD Ex.P19: 11 X-rays Ex.P20: Two CT scan reports Ex.P21: Authorization Letter Ex.P22: Case Sheet Ex.P23: Authorization Letter Ex.P24: Case Sheet Ex.P25: 3 C.T. Scan Ex.P26: 13X-rays Ex.P27: OPD Card Ex.P28: C.T. Scan Report with film. Ex.P29: Neuro Physiological Assessment Report LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS RW-1: S.S.Manjunatha RW-2: C.A.Chandrashekar RW-3: Aditaya Jasrotia RW-4: S.S.Manjunatha LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:
Ex.R-1: Insurance policy copy Ex.R-2: Certified copy of excise gate pass cum commercial invoice Ex.R-3: B - register extract Ex.R-4: Delivery receipt Ex.R-5: Retail invoice 32 MVC.No.3915 of 2014 SCCH-23 Ex.R-6: Trade certificate Ex.R-7: Sale certificate Ex.R-8: Form No.19 Blue Hyundia dated 20.03.2014 Ex.R-9: Form No.19 Blue Hyundia dated 20.03.2014 Ex.R-10: Tax paid Ex.R-11: Policy Ex.R-12: Driver appointment letter of Dhananjaya Ex.R-13: DL extract Ex.R-14: Transport document (proof of delivery) Ex.R-15: Insurance Policy Ex.R-16 to 19 : Four trade certificates (N.N.YALAVATTI) XXI ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, BANGALORE.