Bangalore District Court
Mr.Nandhan.T.M vs M/S Reliance Gic Ltd on 19 April, 2022
SCCH-20 1 MVC No.8086/2019
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL &
V ADDL. JUDGE SCCH20, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.
Dated this the 19th day of April, 2022
Present: Smt.Sharmila C.S. BA.L., LL.M
V Addl. Small Causes Judge
& XXIV A.C.M.M., Member, M.A.C.T.,
Bengaluru.
MVC. No.8086/2019
PETITIONER: Mr.Nandhan.T.M
S/o T.N.Manjunath Shetty
Aged about 21 years
R/o at No.58, 2nd cross,
Venkateshwara Theater Road,
Nethravathi Layout,
Devasandra,
K.R.Puram,
Bangalore560036
(By Pleader Sri.T.Manjunatha)
V/s
RESPONDENTS: 1.M/s Reliance GIC Ltd.,
Motor claims Hub,
No.28, 5th floor,
Centenary Building ,
East wing, near citi Bank,
M.R.Road, Banagalore - 560001
2. M/s Trident Auto
enterprises Pvt Ltd.,
210/2, Upper Palace orchards,
Bellary Road, Sadashivnagar,
Bangalore - 560080
(R1 By Pleader Sri.H.T.Venkataraju
R2By Pleader Sri.K.Krishnaprasad)
SCCH-20 2 MVC No.8086/2019
JUDGMENT
The petition is filed seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/ with interest, for the injury caused due to accident on 18.09.2019.
2. Petition averments in brief are as follows; That on 18.09.2019 at about 01.00 pm., the petitioner was walking on the side of the old madras road, near RMZ infinity, Bangalore city, while a car bearing No.KA04MV 0994, came in high speed and in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner and as a result, the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries. That due to the accident, he is unable to do his work as before and has lost the income. Thus prays to grant the compensation as sought for.
3. The respondent No.1 has filed the written statement and denies the entire averments of the plaint and further submits that there is collusion between the petitioner and the SCCH-20 3 MVC No.8086/2019 owner of the offending vehicle so as to get the compensation since the offending vehicle was not at all involved in the accident. Thus prays to dismiss the petition. The respondent No.2 being the owner of the vehicle appeared through its advocate but did not file written statement.
4. On the basis of the Pleadings and materials, the following issues arise for my determination.
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that on 18.09.2019 at about 01.00 PM, when the petitioner was walking on the side of the road, near RMZ infinity, Bangalore city, while a Car bearing No.KA04MV0994, came in a rash and negligent manner and so as to endanger human life, dashed against the petitioner, as a result of forced impact, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries?.
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. What order or award?
5. In order to prove his case, the petitioner got SCCH-20 4 MVC No.8086/2019 examined himself as P.W.1.and one witness as PW2 and got marked documents as Ex.P.1 to 14 and closed his side. The respondent did not lead any evidence.
6. Heard the arguments from the counsel for the petitioner and the respondent No.1 and2 and have failed to appear and hence arguments of the respondent No.2 was taken as nil.
7. My findings on the above points are as follows:
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative
(burdening the
respondent No.1)
Issue No.3 : As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
8. ISSUE No.1: According to the petitioner, on
18.09.2019 at about 01.00 pm., the petitioner was walking on the side of the old madras road, near RMZ infinity, Bangalore city, while a car bearing No.KA04MV0994, came in high speed and in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner and as a result, the petitioner fell down SCCH-20 5 MVC No.8086/2019 and sustained grievous injuries. That due to the accident, he is unable to do his work as before and has lost the income. Thus prays to grant the compensation as sought for.
9. In order to prove the allegation, the petitioner got examined himself as PW1 and has produced 14 documents on his behalf, of which, the FIS is marked as Ex.P.2 shows that it was lodged by one Vittala Krishana, the brother of the petitioner on 18.09.2019 i.e., on the same day of the alleged accident. He has noted the number of the vehicle causing the accident as the car bearing No.KA04MV0994. Further the FIR is lodged against the driver of the said vehicle on the same day as per Ex.P.2. The police intimation / MLC has been issued by the MTB Hospital who have intimated the concerned police regarding the admission of the petitioner in the hospital with the history of RTA and hit by 4 wheeler bearing NO.KA04MV0994, as informed by the petitioner himself. The mahazar is produced as Ex.P.8 along with sketch as Ex.P.8(a) which was conducted on the same day. As SCCH-20 6 MVC No.8086/2019 per Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.8(a) the accident took place at a little distance from the road, where there is divider which means that the said road is one way, moving from Halasur to K.R.Puram. The Final report is against the driver of the offending vehicle, pointing out the offence punishable under section 279 and 338 of IPC. All these documents depict the fact that the petitioner was hit by the offending vehicle bearing No.KA04MV0994 while he was crossing the road causing the accident and thus appears that there is negligence on part of the driver of the offending vehicle in causing the accident.
10. The respondent /insurance company has taken up defence that the alleged vehicle was not at all involved in the accident and that there is negligence on part of the petitioner who has crossed the road in a place where there is no pedestrian crossing or zebra crossing. Thus, in this regard the PW1 was cross examined, where the PW1 submits that there was divider, but there was no signal or any zebra SCCH-20 7 MVC No.8086/2019 crossing so as to enable pedestrian to walk or cross the road from one side to another side. But the sketch Ex.P.8(a) shows that the accident took place on the said road which was about 46 feet in width and the accident occurred at a distance of about 2 feet or 3 feet from foot path. The PW1 submits that on the alleged date of accident, he was moving from north to south direction, which coupled with the sketch clearly shows that the petitioner has moved only to small distance. The petitioner ought to had been careful while crossing the road and of course was negligent since there was no zebra crossing. But no where near the said road, there shows a place for pedestrian to cross the road. No evidence is lead by the respondent in order to prove that there was nearby zebra cross enabling the petitioner to cross the road and thus there is negligence on part of the petitioner in causing the accident. The driver of the offending vehicle was the proper person to have explained the situation before this court who is absent in this case. However under normal situation, the pedestrian would normally cross the road from SCCH-20 8 MVC No.8086/2019 one side to other side, because of their inability to move a long distance and wait for signal or zebra crossing to cross the road. The mahazar shows that the said road was fit for moving of the vehicles. No evidence is lead to show that there were movement of lots of vehicle so as to consider the negligence on the part of the petitioner in crossing the road. The driver of the offending vehicle ought to had been more careful and cautious in driving the vehicle. If the driver of the said vehicle was not rash or not negligent, would have stopped his vehicle when he saw pedestrian crossing the road. Therefore there appears negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, who might have driven his vehicle in a rash or negligent manner, and was unable to put the brake on seeing pedestrian crossing the road. The MVA report marked as Ex.P.9 shows that the accident was not occurred due to the mechanical defects, by which this court can come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash or negligent act of driving of the vehicle by the 2 nd respondent driver.
SCCH-20 9 MVC No.8086/2019
11. Regarding non involvement of alleged vehicle, though the insured has taken the said defence in the written statement, nothing is shown before this court so as to consider the noninvolvement of the vehicle. However, the police intimation given on the said day, by the hospital which is as per information of the petitioner, coupled with the final report etc., points out the involvement of offending vehicle bearing No.KA04MV0994. Accordingly by holding that there is negligence on part of the driver of the offending vehicle in the said accident, the above issue is answered in affirmative.
12. Point No.2: The petitioner is claiming a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/, for the injuries he sustained in the accident. The petitioner submits that he was doing own business and was earning Rs.20,000/ per month. But he has not given any details as to the same or the bank statement if any to show the regular income. In this situation, SCCH-20 10 MVC No.8086/2019 the notional income of Rs.14,000/ can be considered.
13. As per Adhaar card of the petitioner, Ex.P7, his date of birth is 30.08.1998 and thus his age as on the date of the accident was 21 years and appropriate multiplier for the said age is 18. But whether the petitioner is permanently disabled to do the future work by the alleged accident is to be seen.
14. The doctor by name Dr.Nagaraj.B.N who has examined the petitioner has assessed the total disability of left Arm at 28% and whole body disability as 9%, and further has deposed that the petitioner sustained fracture of the left clavicle and fracture of the left ilium with multiple lacerations over the body and submitted that the fractures are united. As per the said doctor PW2, the injuries were treated conservatively. The petitioner was in the hospital for one day. There is only clavicular fracture which cannot be considered as a disability as per the government notification. By all these, this court can consider that there is no physical or SCCH-20 11 MVC No.8086/2019 functional disability to the petitioner, who is thus not entitled for further loss of income.
15. As per the available materials on record, Ex.P.6, the medical expenses would tune to Rs.29,539/ , which can be rounded of to Rs.30,000/as medical expenses and hospital charges. Therefore, petitioner is entitled for Rs.30,000/ under the head of medical expenses and hospital charges.
16. The wound certificate is marked as Ex.P4 and the discharge summary is marked as Ex.P.5, shows that the petitioner was admitted from 18.09.2019 to 19.09.2019 for about 2 days and has sustained fracture of the left arm. which is grievous in nature. Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was admitted to Govt Hospital, K.R.Puram and shifted to MTB hospital and was inpatient for about 2 days and treated conservatively, by which the petitioner may be expected to be in the bed rest for a period of one month, by which he is entitled for loss of pay for a period of one month. SCCH-20 12 MVC No.8086/2019 Considering this, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.25,000/ towards pain and sufferings, Rs.2,000/ towards food and nourishment charges, Rs.2,000/ towards conveyance charges, and Rs.2,000/ towards attendant charges and Rs.2,000/ towards loss of amenities.
17. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for just and reasonable compensation as under:
1 Pain and sufferings Rs.25,000/ 2 Medical expenses and hospital charges Rs.30,000/ 3 Food and nourishment Rs.2,000/ 4 Conveyance charges Rs.2,000/ 5 Attendant charges Rs.2,000/ 6 Loss of amenities Rs.2,000/ 7 Loss of income during laid up period Rs.14,000/ TOTAL Rs.77,000/-
In all the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.77,000/.
18. In this case, there is no disputed fact that the respondent No.1 is the insurer of the said Car bearing Reg.No.KA04MV0994 which caused accident. The respondent no.1 has failed to prove that the insurance SCCH-20 13 MVC No.8086/2019 company is not liable to pay the aforesaid compensation amount and as on the date of accident the insurance policy was in force. Hence, this issue is answered accordingly burdening the respondent No.1 to pay the compensation to the petitioner, along with the present Bank rate of interest at 6%,
19. Point No.3: For the reasons stated in the aforesaid paragraphs, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The claim petition filed by the petitioner under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with cost.
The petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs.77,000/ with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization of the entire amount.
The respondent No.1 is hereby directed to deposit the aforesaid compensation amount within two months from the date of judgment.
After deposit, the entire compensation amount shall be released in favour of the petitioner with proper identification.
SCCH-20 14 MVC No.8086/2019Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 19th day of April 2022) (Sharmila C.S) V ASCJ & Member, MACT, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.
A N N E X U R E:
Witnesses examined for petitioners:
P.W.1 : Nandhan T.M P.W.2 : Dr.Nagaraj.B.N
Documents marked for petitioners:
Ex.P1 : True Copy of the FIR, Ex.P2 : True Copy of the FIS, Ex.P3 : Police intimation Ex.P4 : True Copy of wound certificate Ex.P5 : Discharge summary Ex.P6 : Medical bills for a sum of Rs.29,539/ Ex.P7 : Adhaar card Ex.P8 : True copy of panchanama Ex.P8(a) : True copy of Sketch Ex.P9 : MVA report Ex.P.10 : Charge sheet Ex.P.11 : copy of order sheet in CC NO.10908/20 Ex.P.12 : Adhaar card Ex.P.13 : Clinical report Ex.P.14 : Xray
Witnesses examined for respondents: NIL Documents marked for respondents: NIL (Sharmila CS,) V ASCJ & Member, MACT, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.SCCH-20 15 MVC No.8086/2019
19.04.2022 (Judgment pronounced in the Open Court, vide separate Order) ORDER The claim petition filed by the petitioner under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with cost.
The petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs.77,000/ with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization of the entire amount.
The respondent No.1 is hereby directed to deposit the aforesaid compensation amount within two months from the date of judgment.
After deposit, the entire compensation amount shall be released in favour of the petitioner with proper identification.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/. Draw award accordingly.
V Addl. Judge & 24th ACMM SCCH-20 16 MVC No.8086/2019 AWARD SCCH NO.20 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA : BANGALORE CITY MVC. No.8086/2019 PETITIONER: Mr.Nandhan.T.M S/o T.N.Manjunath Shetty Aged about 21 years R/o at No.58, 2nd cross, Venkateshwara Theater Road, Nethravathi Layout, Devasandra, K.R.Puram, Bangalore560036 (By Pleader Sri.T.Manjunatha) V/s RESPONDENTS: 1.M/s Reliance GIC Ltd., Motor claims Hub, No.28, 5th floor, Centenary Building , East wing, near citi Bank, M.R.Road, Banagalore - 560001
2. M/s Trident Auto enterprises Pvt Ltd., 210/2, Upper Palace orchards, Bellary Road, Sadashivnagar, Bangalore - 560080 (R1 By Pleader Sri.H.T.Venkataraju R2By Pleader Sri.K.Krishnaprasad) WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the petitioner/s above named U/Sec.166 of the M.V.C. Act, praying for SCCH-20 17 MVC No.8086/2019 the compensation of Rs. (Rupees ) for the injuries sustained by the petitioner/Death of in a motor Accident by vehicle No. WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before Smt.Sharmila CS, V Addl., Judge and XXIV A.C.M.M, Member, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. Advocate for respondent.
ORDER The claim petition filed by the petitioner under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with cost.
The petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs.77,000/ with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization of the entire amount.
The respondent No.1 is hereby directed to deposit the aforesaid compensation amount within two months from the date of judgment.
After deposit, the entire compensation amount shall be released in favour of the petitioner with proper identification.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/. SCCH-20 18 MVC No.8086/2019 Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day of 2022.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: Bangalore.
By the __________________________________ Petitioner/s Respondent No.1 No.2 ¬ _________________________________ Court fee paid on petition 1000 Process Pleaders Fee _____________________________ Total Rs. Decree Drafted Scrutinized by MEMBER, M.A.C.T. METROPOLITAN: BANGALORE Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR SCCH-20 19 MVC No.8086/2019