Bangalore District Court
Vajramuni vs United India Ins. Co on 30 June, 2015
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE. (SCCH-11)
DATED THIS 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2015
PRESENT: SRI. GANAPATI GURUSIDDA BADAMI, B.A,LL.B(SPL).
I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXVII ACMM
M.V.C No.4277/2013
PETITIONER: Vajramuni,
S/o.Muniraju,
Aged about 23 years,
No.38/3, Near Shri Ramanjaneya
Temple, 4th Cross, Ananthapura,
Avalahalli, Yelahanka,
Bangalore - 560 064.
(By pleader - Sri.B.K.Vasudevamurthy)
- V/S -
RESPONDENTS: 1.United India Ins. Co., Ltd.,
Regional office, 5th Floor,
Krishi Bhavan, Hudson Circle,
Banglaore.
(By pleader - Sri.J.N.R.)
2. Sreenivas.R,
No.78, 12th Cross, Duo Marvel,
Ananthpura, Yalahanka new Town,
Bangalore - 560 064.
(By pleader - Sri.V.Vijayashekara Gowda)
SCCH --11 2 MVC No.4277/2013
JUDGMENT
Petitioner has filed this claim petition against the respondents claiming the compensation for the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident.
2) It is averred that, on 22.4.2013 at about 7:30pm, the petitioner was riding his motor cycle bearing No.KA-53-U-175 on Ananthpuar Main Road towards D.B.Road carefully and cautiously by observing traffic rules and regulations. At that time, rider of motor cycle bearing No. KA-50-J-909 ridden the said vehicle in rash and negligent manner endangering human life with high speed and dashed to the motor cycle of the petitioner by which petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries.
3) Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to Columbia Asia Hospital wherein he was admitted as inpatient and he undergone multiple operations to his head and implants were fixed. Petitioner has spent more than Rs.3,00,000/- towards medical and other expenses.
SCCH --11 3 MVC No.4277/2013 Petitioner was hale and healthy at the time of the accident and he was doing real estate business agency and earning Rs.15,000 per month. But due to the accidental injuries, the petitioner has become disabled and unable to attend his work and earn for his livelihood and he is deprived of all amenities in life. The petitioner has to take bed rest for 6 months and he has lost his earnings during that period.
4) The accident taken place due to rash and negligent driving by the rider of offending vehicle and jurisdictional police have registered Cr.No.51/2013 against the rider of offending vehicle for the offences punishable under Section 279, 338 of IPC. The respondents being owner and insurer of offending vehicle are jointly liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. Hence the petitioner has claimed the compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- from the respondents.
5) The respondent No1 has filed Written Statement and denied the contents of the claim petition. It is also contended that, the petitioner is neither resident SCCH --11 4 MVC No.4277/2013 nor working in Bangalore and this Hon'ble court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the claim petition and the claim petition is liable to be dismissed in view of the decision of Hon'ble High Court in M.F.A.No.1458/2007 in between New India Assurance Company Ltd V/s Kannappa; Subhadra and others V/s Pankajh and others ILR 2003 KAR 102. It is admitted that, the respondent No1 issued insurance policy bearing No.071600/31/12/01/00001841 in favour of the respondent No.2 in respect of offending vehicle. But the liability of the respondent No1 is subject to the terms and conditions of insurance policy. As per section 134(c) of Motor Vehicle Act, it is mandatory duty of the respondent No2 to furnish the particulars of insurance policy, date, time and place of the accident, particulars of the injured and name of driver and particulars of driving licence. But the respondent No2 has not complied the mandatory requirements of provisions of Motor Vehicle Act. As per section 158(6) of Motor Vehicle Act, it is mandatory duty of concerned jurisdictional police to forward all relevant documents to the concerned insurer within 30 days from SCCH --11 5 MVC No.4277/2013 the date of information. But Yelahanka Traffic Police have failed to forward documents to the respondent No1 and not complied the statutory demand. The respondent No2 has entrusted the said vehicle to its rider who is not having valid and effective driving licence and if any award is passed by this tribunal, the respondent No2 is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. Without prejudice, the respondent No1 submits that, alleged accident taken place due to the negligence of the petitioner and at the time of alleged accident, the rider of insured vehicle driven the motor cycle by giving signal and indications to the opposite vehicle and observing traffic rules and regulations and when he was taking turn and more ever there was green signal to the insured vehicle to move road and at that time, the petitioner by jumping signal dashed to the offending vehicle and met with an accident. The petitioner colluded with police and fixed false case against the rider of insured vehicle in order to get the compensation. Hence the claim petition may be dismissed against the respondent No1 and if any award passed by this tribunal, respondent No2 alone is liable to pay the compensation. The petitioner has not SCCH --11 6 MVC No.4277/2013 sustained any injuries worth claiming the compensation as alleged in the claim petition and said allegations are made only with an intention to claim excessive compensation from the respondents. In the event, the respondent No2 fails to contest the claim petition effectively on merits or colludes with petitioner, the respondent No1 may be permitted to take all defences available to the respondent No2 as provided under Section 170 (b) of Motor Vehicle Act. In the event of any award passed by this tribunal against the respondent No1, the rate of interest shall be restricted to 6% per annum as per decision of Hon'ble High Court and no interest shall be payable to future medical expenses and future loss of income and interest is to be payable only over the amount which has become payable on the date of award as per law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in R.D.Hattangadi V/s Pest Control India Pvt Ltd AIR 1995 SC 755. The compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive and it has no rationale and petitioner is not entitled for any compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- with SCCH --11 7 MVC No.4277/2013 interest from the respondent No1. Therefore it is prayed for dismissal of the claim petition with costs.
6) The respondent No2 has filed Written Statement and denied the contents of claim petition contending that, claim petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is also contended that, there was no such accident taken place on 22.4.2013 at about 7:30pm on opposite to DEO Marvel Main Gate, Ananthpuram Main Road, Bangalore within limits of Yelahanka traffic Police Station at any point of time, question of respondent No2 paying the compensation to the petitioner does not arise at all and question of booking a case against the respondent No2 by the Yelahanka police does not arise at all. In the event, this tribunal comes to conclusion that, accident taken place on 22.4.2013 at relevant point of time, the respondent No2 had possessed valid and effective driving licence and insurance policy in respect of said vehicle and said vehicle was insured with respondent No1. The alleged accident taken place due to negligence on the part of the petitioner and not due to fault of respondent No2. The SCCH --11 8 MVC No.4277/2013 petitioner has filed false claim petition in order to make wrongful gain out of unfortunate incident. The compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive, exorbitant and illegal and illusory and on this ground, claim petition is liable to be dismissed. Therefore it is prayed for dismissal of claim petition with costs.
7) Petitioner himself examined as PW-1 and also examined Sri.Siddagangaiah S/o Siddaiah as PW-2 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 17 and closed his evidence. The respondent No.1 has examined one L.Ram Prasad S/o K.Lakshmana Rao as RW.1 and also examined Dr.R.shashikantha as RW.2 and got marked Ex.R.1 to 4 and closed the evidence.
8) Heard the arguments of learned counsel for petitioner. Though sufficient time has been granted to the respondent No1 and 2, they have not addressed the arguments. Hence respondent No1 and 2 side arguments are taken as not addressed and claim petition is taken for disposal on merits.
SCCH --11 9 MVC No.4277/2013
9) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,
following issues have been framed:
1. Whether petitioner proves that, on 22.4.2013 at about 7:30pm, when he was riding motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-53-U-175 on Anathapura Main Road towards D.B.Road by observing traffic rules carefully and cautiously, the rider of motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-50-J-909 riding the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed to the motor cycle of the petitioner by which he sustained grievous injuries?
2. Whether respondent No1 proves that, as on the date of the accident, the rider of offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence and respondent No2 has violated terms and conditions of insurance policy?
3. Whether petitioner is entitled for the compensation as prayed in the petition? If so, what quantum of compensation and from whom?
4. What order or award?
10) My findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative; Issue No.2: In the Negative;
IssueNo.3: Partly Affirmative; the petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs.2,60,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till complete realisation, from respondent No.1.
SCCH --11 10 MVC No.4277/2013 Issue No4: As per final order for the following:
REASONS
11) ISSUE No.1: PW-1 has stated in his evidence that, on 22.4.2013 at about 7:30pm, he was riding his motor cycle bearing No.KA-53-U-175 on the extreme left side of Anathapura Main Road carefully and cautiously by observing traffic rules and regulations. He has also stated that, at that time, rider of motor cycle bearing No.KA-50-J-
909 ridden the said vehicle in rash and negligent manner endangering human life with high speed from opposite direction and taken sudden full right turn and came extreme right side and dashed to his motor cycle. He has also stated that, due to the said impact, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries.
12) In the cross examination of PW-1, he has admitted that, Yelahanka Road is well known to him and road at the place of accident is having width for one out going and incoming vehicles. He has also admitted that, as per ExP-5, the width of road is 70 feet and there is no SCCH --11 11 MVC No.4277/2013 median at the place of the accident and width of the road at cross road is 30 feet. He has also stated that, there is no traffic signal at the place of the accident. he has stated that, he had seen opposite vehicle at the distance of 10 feet. He has admitted that, he has stated in his evidence that, there was head on collusion between my vehicle and opposite vehicle and in case of head on collusion in between two vehicles, there are chances of damages to the front portion of both vehicles. He has stated that, he was going on his motor cycle and he has not told to the hospital authorities about nature of the accident.
13) The learned counsel for respondent No.1 has contended in his argument that, the false case has been registered on the basis of the false complaint and PW.1 has stated in his evidence that, one Sri. Srinivas is his friend and he was not having impediment to mention the vehicle number of Srinivas in his complaint. He has also submitted that, the accident taken place by one unknown vehicle and the vehicle is belonged to the friend of the petitioner by name Sri. Srinivas which has been falsely SCCH --11 12 MVC No.4277/2013 implicated in order to claim the compensation and involvement of the vehicle in the accident itself is doubtful. He has also submitted that, in the cross-examination of PW.2 who is investigating officer, he has admitted that he has not seized the vehicle even though there is facility to trace out the address of the owner of the vehicle by online. He has submitted that, in the cross-examination of PW.2, he has admitted that, there are no documents to show that, he attempted to search the vehicle which caused the accident. He has submitted that the false case has been registered by colluding with owner of the offending vehicle in order to claim compensation. He has also argued that, RW.2 has stated in his chief examination that, in case of any corrections, he will put his initials and in the MLC records, vehicle number has been mentioned and he will put his initial in the MLC records and he has not mentioned about correction made in the concerned MLC record which goes to show that, the MLC records has been created to help the claimant to claim the compensation. On perusal of F.I.R and complaint which marked as Ex.P.1 and 2, they disclose that, as per the complaint, the SCCH --11 13 MVC No.4277/2013 accident taken place on 22.04.2013 at about 7.30 p.m. and FIR lodged on the same day at about 9.50 p.m. As per Ex.P.4 which is wound certificate, petitioner was admitted to the Columbia Asia Hospital on 22.04.2013 at about 8.20 p.m. with history of accident on the same day at about 11.40 p.m. at Ananthapura, opposite Dio Morvel layout main gate. In the evidence of RW.2, he has produced MLC register extract and as per the said document, the petitioner by name Vajramuni M. S/o Muniraju was admitted on 22.04.2013 at about 8.20 p.m., and he was brought by Sri.Venkatapathy with history of road traffic accident at about 7.45 p.m. at Ananthapur, opposite Dio Marvel layout. In the evidence of RW.2, MLC intimation has been produced, which is marked as Ex.R.4 and as per the said document, on 22.04.2013 at about 8.20 p.m., injured Vajramuni was admitted to the hospital and he was brought by his father Venkatapathy with history of road traffic accident at Ananthapura, opposite Dio Marvel layout. The MLC intimation has been issued by one PC 10106 of Yalahanka Traffic police station on the same day and he was discharged on the same date at about 11.45 SCCH --11 14 MVC No.4277/2013 p.m. No doubt, in the MLC register extract, in the history of accident, some corrections have been made. On perusal of Ex.P.1 and 2, in the complaint itself, the vehicle No.KA- 50-J-909 has been shown as vehicle which caused the accident and complaint has been filed within two hours of accident and there is no delay at all, question of false implication of the said vehicle does not arise at all. Because, in the complaint, it has been clearly mentioned that, the accident taken place on 22.04.2013 at about 7.30 p.m., on the Ananthapura main road, in front of Dio Marvel layout main gate by the rider of Motor cycle No.KA- 50-J-909 to the petitioner who was proceeding on his Motor cycle bearing No.KA-53-U-175. The complaint has been lodged at about 9.50 p.m. and FIR has been registered by Yalahanka traffic police and MLC intimation has been given by the hospital authorities to the police and in the MLC intimation, history of road traffic accident has been mentioned. Even though, some corrections are in the MLC register, it will not disprove the accident and rash and negligent act. Because, there is no delay in lodging the complaint. Even PW.1 has clearly stated in his SCCH --11 15 MVC No.4277/2013 evidence that, he was unconscious at the time of admission in the hospital and for that reasons, he had not told to the hospital authorities about vehicle number which caused the accident. Even in Ex.P.9, which is the discharge summary, it has been clearly noted that, at the time of admission of the petitioner, he was unconscious. Since the petitioner was unconscious at the time of admission in the hospital, there were no chances for him to disclose the vehicle number to the hospital authorities and he was admitted to the hospital by his father. There is no delay in lodging the complaint and since the complaint has been filed within the two hours of the accident, there are no chances of false implication of the vehicle by the petitioner. It cannot be presumed that there has been false implication only for the reason that, when Srinivas is known to the petitioner. So, I hold that the contention taken by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 is not at all acceptable. Even in the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 reported in (M/s Vijaya V. Shetty V/s Mr. V. Sharada and others), ILR 2015 KAR 401, the medical certificate was not SCCH --11 16 MVC No.4277/2013 produced before the Court and the accident occurred purely on account of false and negligent act on the part of the claimant and there was no involvement of two vehicles and injuries stated to have been sustained by victim are not an account of involvement of vehicle, but an account of skid by the claim petition. But in this case, MLC register extract has been produced and in the complaint and FIR, it is clearly shown about involvement of two vehicles in the road traffic accident and said vehicles have been seized at the time of panchanama. Hence the principles laid down in the said decision are not applicable to the facts of this case. The learned counsels for respondent insurance company has also relied upon one more decision of Hon'ble High Court reported in Veerappa and another V/s Shivappa and another. In the said decision, the accident taken place on 26.06.2001 and injured died on 28.06.2001 and no complaint was lodged by the father of the injured and as per the say of father of the injured, he went and lodged the complaint on 28.06.2001. In the said decision, earlier FIR and charge sheet where suppressed by the police and claimant and vehicle involved in the accident was never SCCH --11 17 MVC No.4277/2013 seized by the police and during the course of investigation of the insurer, the truth came out and claim petition dismissed by the tribunal. The Hon'ble High Court has held that the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured and there is no liability on the part of insurance company to pay the compensation to the claimants and fixed the liability upon the owner of the offending vehicle. But the facts of the said decision and facts of this decision are totally different. Because, in the said case, earlier FIR and charge sheet were suppressed by the police and claimants and vehicle was not seized by the police and there was delay in lodging the complaint. But, in this case, incident taken place on 22.04.2013 at about 7.30 p.m., and FIR lodged on the same day at about 9.30 p.m., and there is no delay in lodging the complaint. Even in this case, the police have also seized the vehicle involved in the accident on 27.04.2013 and motor vehicle inspection was conducted. But, in the decision relied upon the learned counsel for respondent No.1, the vehicle involved in the accident was not at all seized and there were earlier FIR and charge sheet which was suppressed by the police and claimant.
SCCH --11 18 MVC No.4277/2013 The facts and circumstances of that case and this case are totally different and the principles laid down in the said decision are not applicable to the facts of this case. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 also relied upon one more decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited V/s Sinitha and others, 2012(1) TAC 234. But the principles laid down in the decision are not at all acceptable to the facts of this case. This claim petition has been filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act and said decision pertaining to the Section 163(a) of Motor Vehicles Act and facts and circumstances of the said decisions are totally different to the facts and circumstances of this case. Though the learned counsel for respondent No.1 has taken contention that the PW.2 has not seized the vehicle during the course of investigation, this contention is not at all acceptable. Because, the PW.2 was working as PSI in traffic police station, Yalahanka for the period from 2010 to 30.04.2013 and he registered the case on 22.04.2013 and visited the place of accident and drawn panchanama and also recorded the statement of witnesses. Since he had to retire SCCH --11 19 MVC No.4277/2013 from service on 30.04.2013 as per the order of police inspector, he had handed over the further investigation of case to PSI. Since there were hardly eight days from the date of registration of FIR till the date of retirement of PW.2 from service, he could not seize the vehicle. Even as per the investigation records, the said vehicle was seized on 22.05.2013 by the concerned I.O for Motor Vehicle Inspection. There were only eight days and among them on the lost working day was the date of retirement of the PW.2 and among them, the last working day was the date of retirement and he had to hand over the charge and within remaining seven days, he cannot undertake any investigation and file charge sheet and only for the that reasons, he has not seized vehicle during the period of investigation, his evidence cannot be discarded. Since the vehicle number has been clearly shown in the FIR and complaint, there are less chances of false implication of vehicle for claiming the compensation. In case, there was delay in lodging the complaint, the contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.1 would have been acceptable. But, the complaint has been lodged by SCCH --11 20 MVC No.4277/2013 specifically mentioning the vehicle number which caused the accident and there are less chances of false implication of the vehicle in the accident. So, this contention is also not acceptable.
14) Petitioner has produced true copy of FIR and complaint which are marked as ExP-1 and 2 and as per said documents, on 22.4.2013 at about 7:30 pm, when the petitioner was going on his motor cycle bearing No.KA-53- U-175 on Ananthapura main Road towards D.B.Road, at that time, the rider of motor cycle bearing No.KA-50-J-909 ridden the said vehicle in rash and negligent manner endangering human life with high speed and dashed to the motor cycle of the petitioner by which petitioner sustained grievous injuries. The Yelahanka Traffic police registered the case against the rider of offending vehicle under Cr.No.51/2013 for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 338 of IPC. Petitioner has also produced hand sketch map which is marked as ExP-5 and as per said document, the petitioner was proceeding on his motor cycle from east to west direction and rider of offending SCCH --11 21 MVC No.4277/2013 vehicle was proceeding from west to east direction and both vehicles colluded and accident taken place. On perusal of hand sketch map, the rider of offending vehicle came towards northern side and dashed to the motor cycle of the petitioner. The petitioner has also produced motor vehicle inspection reports which are marked as ExP-7 and 8 and as per said documents, the motor cycle of the petitioner sustained damage to the front portion and motor cycle of the rider also sustained damage to the doom and muffler cover. Petitioner has also produced true copy of charge sheet and as per said document, after investigation, police have filed charge sheet against the rider of offending vehicle for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 338 of IPC.
15) On perusal of police documents and evidence of PW-1, they disclose that, at the place of the accident, the road is having width of 70 feet where incoming vehicles and out going vehicles can proceed and there is no traffic signal at the place of the accident and there is no center median at the place of the accident. On perusal of charge SCCH --11 22 MVC No.4277/2013 sheet and enclosures, they disclose that, the accident taken place due to rash and negligent riding by the rider of offending vehicle. So I answered issue No.1 in affirmative.
16) ISSUE No.2: The respondent No1 has taken contention that, as on the date of the accident, rider of offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence and respondent No2 violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy. But this contention of the respondent No1 is not acceptable. Because the respondent No1 has not examined licensing authority to prove the said contention and he has not placed any materials on record to show that, as on the date of the accident, the rider of offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence. In a decision of Hon'ble High Court reported in Kempegowda and another V/s Seena and another, 2014 ACJ 381, wherein it is held as under:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, section 149 (2) (a) (ii)-Motor insurance-Driving licence-Liability of insurance company-
Insurance company disputes its liability on the ground that driver was holding a SCCH --11 23 MVC No.4277/2013 licence to drive light motor vehicle but he was driving a Tempo which is a transport/goods vehicle-Insurance company adduced no material to substantiate its contention-Tribunal on the basis of evidence held that driver had valid and effective driving licence to drive the particular type of vehicle and no policy conditions are violated by the owner-insured-Whether insurance company is liable-Held; yes. (Para 9) In one more decision of Hon'ble High Court of Panjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, reported in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s Mahesh Kumar and others, 2011 ACJ 1606, wherein it is heald as under:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, section 149 (2) (a) (ii)-Motor insurance-Driving licence-Burden of proof-Liability of insurance company-Insurance company disputed its liability on the ground that driver was not holding a valid driving licence-No evidence on record to show that owner was negligent in appointing SCCH --11 24 MVC No.4277/2013 the driver, as admittedly he had a licence, the authenticity of which was disputed-Insurance company did not examine any witness from the licensing authority to prove the report that driver was not holding a valid licence-Whether burden of proof was on the insurance company it failed to discharge its burden by leading cogent evidence-
Held: yes; insurance company did not summon any official from licensing authority and mere marking of an exhibit does not dispense with the proof of the document. [(2007-1) 145 PR 528 and AIR 1971 SC 1865 relied.
In one more decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench in Nathulal V/s Kachrulal and others, 2014 ACJ 263, wherein it is held as under:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, section 147-Motor insurance-Driving licence- Liability of insurance company-Burden of proof-Insurance company disputes its liability on the ground that driver of offending vehicle had licence to drive light motor vehicle (LMV) but he was SCCH --11 25 MVC No.4277/2013 driving a motor cycle-No official from R.T.O. examined by the insurance company to prove the fact that licence of LMV was issued to drive only light motor vehicles, i.e., four-wheelers and not to drive two-wheelers-Whether insurance company failed to discharge its onus to prove that driver had no valid and effective driving licence licence at the time of accident and insurance company is liable-Held: yes.
In one more decision of Hon'ble High Court reported in Shivarama Parameshwara Hegde V/s Subray Honnappa Naik and another, 2011 ACJ 1464 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, section 149 (2) (a) (ii)- Motor insurance-Driving licence-Liability of insurance company-
Insurance company disputes its liability on the ground that driver had no valid licence to drive goods vehicle on the date of accident-Driver had licence valid from 28.1.2000 to 27.1.2020 with further endorsement permitting him to drive transport vehicle for the period up to 5.1.2014-Contention that licence to SCCH --11 26 MVC No.4277/2013 drive transport vehicles is issued for three years and thus 6.1.2001 should be taken as the date to reckon the validity of licence to drive transport vehicle and the accident occurred prior to that date, viz., 31.12.2000-Insurance company produced photocopy of licence for placing reliance on it, it is bound by it and it failed to examine any official from the Motor Vehicles Department to elicit as to whether such an issuance of licence is legally permissible or not-
Whether the insurance company could establish that driver had no valid and effective driving licence to drive goods vehicle which he was driving at the time of accident and is exempted from liability-Held: no.
In the light of principles laid down in the above said decision, I hold that, the contention of the respondent No.1 is not acceptable. So I answered issue No.2 in negative.
17) ISSUE NO.3: The petitioner has produced medical bills of Columbia Asia Hosptial, which are SCCH --11 27 MVC No.4277/2013 marked as Ex.P.10 and 11 and as per the said document, petitioner has spent Rs.2,34,947/- for the purpose of treatment. In the cross-examination of PW.1, he has stated that he has not produced documents to show that he was doing real estate business and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Though, petitioner has produced medical bills, he has not adduced the evidence of treated doctor and he has not produced any disability certificate. In the absence of medical evidence regarding disability and in the absence of evidence of treated doctor, I feel it just and proper to award the global compensation of Rs.2,60,000/- including medical expenses along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition, till its realization. The respondent No.1 is the insurer of the offending vehicle and respondent No.2 is the insured and as on the date of accident, the insurance policy was inforce. So I hold that, the respondent No.1 is liable to indemnify the respondent SCCH --11 28 MVC No.4277/2013 No.2. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for global compensation of Rs.2,60,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realization from respondent No.1. So, I answer issue No.3 in partly affirmative.
18) ISSUE No.4: In view of answers to issues No.1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed under Section 166 of M.V. Act is partly allowed with costs.
The petitioner is entitled for global compensation of Rs.2,60,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till complete realisation.
The respondent No.1 shall deposit the awarded compensation amount within the period of one month, from the date of this award.
On deposit of compensation amount, since the award amount includes heavy medical bills, entire compensation amount shall be released to the petitioner SCCH --11 29 MVC No.4277/2013 by means of account payee crossed cheque, on proper identification and verification.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(Typed to my online dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this 30th day of June, 2015.) (GANAPATHI GURUSIDDA BADAMI) I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXVII ACMM A N N E X U R E WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PETITIONERS:
PW.1 - Vajramuni
PW.2 - Siddagangaiah
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS:
Ex.P.1 - True copy of FIR
Ex.P.2 - True copy of complaint
Ex.P.3 - True copy of charge sheet
Ex.P.4 - True copy of wound certificate
Ex.P.5 - True copy of hand sketch map
Ex.P.6 - True copy of panchanama
SCCH --11 30 MVC No.4277/2013
Ex.P.7&8 - True copy of 2 IMV reports
Ex.P.9 - Discharge summary
Ex.P.10&11 - 2 inpatient bills
Ex.P.12 - 11 deposit receipts
Ex.P.13 - One medical bill
Ex.P.14-16 - 3 laboratory reports
Ex.P.17 - Notarised attested copy driving licence
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR RESPONDENTS :
RW.1 - Hans Shivhare (discard)
RW.1 - L.Ram Prasad
RW.2 - Dr.R.Shashikantha
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS :
Ex.R.1 - Authorising letter (discard)
Ex.R.2 - True copy of insurance package policy(discard)
Ex.R.1 - True copy of insurance package policy
Ex.R.2 - Authorising issued by Medical Officer
Ex.R.3 - MLC Register extract
Ex.R.4 - Attested copy of policy intimation
I ADDL.SCJ. & MACT.