Bangalore District Court
Venkatachalapathy.N vs K. Senguttuvan on 25 February, 2025
SCCH-2 1 MVC No.5465/2021
KABC020323752021
IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES AND ADDL. CHIEF JIDICIAL MAGISTRATE
AND MACT, BENGALURU. (SCCH-2).
M.V.C.No.5465/2021
Present : Sri. H.P. Mohan Kumar, B.Sc.,LL.B.,
VIth Addl. Judge, Court of Small
Causes and ACJM and MACT,
Bengaluru.
Dated on this 25th day of February, 2025.
Petitioner : Sri. Venkatachalapathy N.,
S/o Nagaraja,
Aged about 32 years,
R/o Obatti Village,
Masthi Hobli,
Malur Taluk,
Kolar District.
(By Sri. T.V. Ramesh, Advocate)
-VERSUS-
Respondents 1. Sri. K. Senguttuvan,
S/o Late Karuppaman,
Major,
R/o S.N. Palya,
Hebbur,
Tumkur Taluk & District.
(Ex-parte)
SCCH-2 2 M.V.C.No.5465/2021
2. The National Insurance Company Ltd.,
Motor Claims Hub,
No.144, 2nd Floor,
Shubharam Complex,
M.G. Road,
Bangalore-01.
(By Sri. K. Sridhara, Advocate)
:J U D G M E N T:
This is a claim petition U/Sec.166 of MV Act claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- with interest for the injuries suffered by the petitioner in the Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 16.11.2021.
2. The averments of the petition in brief is as follows:
On 16.11.2021 at about 1.00 p.m., the petitioner was going towards Hosakote from Malur by riding his motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-08-X-1693 slowly, cautiously on the correct side of Hosakote-Malur road by wearing helmet. When the petitioner proceeding in front of Shetty Petrol Bunk, Malur Town, Kolar District, one private Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-06-D- 2889 came from Hosakote side with high speed in a rash or negligent manner and took 'U' turn to its right side without giving any hand signals or indicator to go to Shetty Petrol Bunk and dashed against the motor cycle. Due to the said impact the petitioner knocked down and sustained grievous injuries.
Immediately after the accident the petitioner was shifted to Rathna Hospital, Malur by the driver and conductor of the SCCH-2 3 M.V.C.No.5465/2021 Bus, after first aid he was referred to R.L. Jalappa Hospital, Kolar. The petitioner has undergone closed undisplaced medial condyle fracture of left femur, total traumatic amputation of left little finger at level of distal interphalageal joint and he was treated as an inpatient for two days.
Further, on 18.11.2021 the petitioner got admitted at Gaurav Orthopedic Hospital, Kolar, wherein he took treatment of wound debridement and stump closure of his left little finger and POP cast was applied to left knee. The petitioner took treatment as an inpatient till 20.11.2021 and thereafter took treatment as an outpatient. In-spite of treatment, the petitioner is physically and functionally disabled. The petitioner has spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses and conveyance and he needs more amount towards future treatment.
The petitioner was a Carpenter by profession and he was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. Due to injuries, the petitioner has been bedridden and lost his earnings. In future he cannot do any carpentry due to loss of little finger and disability in his left leg.
The accident was occurred due to carelessness, rash or negligent driving of the Private Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-06-D- 2889. The 1st respondent being the RC Owner of the above said bus and the 2nd respondent being the insurer. Hence, both the respondents are liable to pay compensation. Hence, this petition.SCCH-2 4 M.V.C.No.5465/2021
3. After service of notice, 2nd respondent-Insurance company appeared through it's counsel and filed written statement. In so far as 1st respondent- R.C. owner of offending vehicle is concerned, he remained absent and he has been placed Ex-parte.
4. The written statement averments of the 2nd respondent are hereunder:
The 2nd respondent admitted the issuance of insurance policy with respect to Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-06-D-2889 and inter-alia contended that, the petitioner himself is the tort feasor as he was riding the motor cycle negligently without observing the heavy traffic road. The liability if any is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, valid and effective D.L. possessed by the driver of the bus. The age, avocation and income of the petitioner, injuries and disability sustained by him is denied. Further denied the involvement of the Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-06-D-2889 in the alleged accident and contended that, in the wound certificate, injuries are not shown due to accident and involvement of bus. Only in order to claim compensation, the story of RTA and documents have been created. Neither the 1st respondent nor the police have intimated this respondent about the occurrence of accident as per M.V.Act. Hence the insured has not complied the mandatory provisions under Sec.134(c) of M.V.Act and the police have not complied the mandatory provisions of Sec.158(6) of M.V.Act.SCCH-2 5 M.V.C.No.5465/2021
Further, the R.C. owner of the offending vehicle has not furnished the valid R.C., F.C., permit and particulars of D.L. possessed by the driver of offending vehicle. Further as per Sec.133 of M.V. Act, notice served to one Santhosh Kumar, who is never entrusted as driver. Hence, there is no contract and there is clear violation of terms and conditions of policy. The petitioner himself is the tort feasor and caused the accident. Hence, contributory negligence on the part of rider of motor cycle has to be considered and the petition is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties as the owner and insurer of motor cycle are not made as parties to the petition. The driver of offending vehicle has possessed the valid driving licence to drive transport/HGV class of vehicle. There is four days delay in lodging the complaint. The compensation claimed by the petitioner is imaginary and exorbitant. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings, this Tribunal has framed the following:
:ISSUES:
1.Whether the petitioner proves that he has sustained injuries in a road traffic accident occurred at 1.00 PM on 16.11.2021 on account of rash or negligent driving of Bus bearing registration No. KA-06-T-2889 by its driver as pleaded in the petition?SCCH-2 6 M.V.C.No.5465/2021
2.Whether the 2nd respondent proves that the driver of Bus bearing KA-06-T-2889 has not possessed valid Driving License.
3.Whether the petitioner proves that he is entitled for the compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?
4.What order or award?
6. In order to prove his case, the petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.19. Further, he examined Dr. Nagaraj B.N., as P.W.2 and marked Ex.P.20 and Ex.P.21. P.W.1 and P.W.2 were cross-examined from the side of respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 has examined one witness as R.W.1 and marked Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.6. R.W.1 was cross- examined from the side of petitioner.
7. Heard the arguments from both side. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following decisions:
1. 2018 ACJ 1768, between Amrit Paul Singh and Another Vs. TATA AIG General Ins. Co.
Ltd., and Others.
2. M.F.A. 4173/2016 C/w M.F.A.2856/2016 and M.F.A.4172/2016, between Shriram General Ins. Co. ltd., Vs. Smt. Anitha A.G. and Another.
SCCH-2 7 M.V.C.No.5465/2021Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent has submitted the written arguments and two judgments of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka.
1. M.F.A. 967 of 2017, between Sri. Venkatesh Vs. IFFCO TOKIO Gen. Insurance Co. Ltd., and Others.
2. M.F.A.6154 of 2019, between Hemalatha @ Hema @ Hemavathi and Others Vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., and Another.
8. Perused the records placed before the Tribunal. The findings of this Tribunal to the above referred Issues are as under:-
Issue No.1 :- In the Affirmative.
Issue No.2 :- In the Negative.
Issue No.3 :- In the Partly Affirmative.
Issue No.4 :- As per the final order for the following:
:REASONS:
9. ISSUE No.1 :- In order to prove the case, the petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 by way of filing affidavit in support of his oral examination-in-chief. Hence, this Tribunal need not to recapitulate the same once again at this SCCH-2 8 M.V.C.No.5465/2021 juncture. Further, P.W.1 has relied on Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.19 to prove his case. Accordingly, Ex.P.1 is the true copy of FIR pertaining to Cr.No.379/2021. Ex.P.2 is the true copy of complaint. Ex.P.3 is the true copy of spot mahazar. Ex.P.4 is the true copy of vehicle seizure mahazar. Ex.P.5 is the true copy of notice issued under Sec.133 of M.V. Act. Ex.P.6 is the true copy of reply to the notice issued under Sec.133 of M.V. Act. Ex.P.7 is the true copy of M.V.A report. Ex.P.8 is the true copy of wound certificate. Ex.P.19 is the true copy of charge sheet.
10. According to the petitioner, he has sustained injuries in the road accident occurred due to rash or negligent driving of the Bus bearing Reg.No.KAKA-06-D-2889 by its driver. According to 2nd respondent the petitioner himself is the tort feasor as he was riding the motor cycle negligently without observing the heavy traffic road and caused the accident. Hence, contributory negligence on the part of rider of motor cycle has to be considered.
11. In order to substantiate its contention, the 2nd respondent has examined its Assistant Manager namely Himendra Kartantik Simha M.N., as R.W.1. R.W.1 has filed affidavit in support of his oral examination-in-chief. He has deposed that, the petitioner himself dashed against the middle portion of the bus. The damages noted in the IMV report clearly shows that, the front portion of the Motor Cycle dashed to the front left side middle portion of the bus. The complaint SCCH-2 9 M.V.C.No.5465/2021 was lodged by delaying four days after the accident. In order to substantiate his contention, R.W.1 has produced six documents, which are marked as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.6. Accordingly, Ex.R.1 is the authorization letter. Ex.R.2 is the certified copy of plea framed in C.C.No.1903/2021. Ex.R.3 is the certified copy of charge sheet pertaining to C.C.No.1903/2021. Ex.R.4 is the certified copy of Endorsement of Renewal of Permit. Ex.R.5 is the certified copy of permit. Ex.R.6 is the true copy of Insurance Policy.
12. To prove the alleged negligence on the part of petitioner, the Insurance Company has cross-examined the petitioner/P.W.1 in detail. Nothing has been elicited from mouth of P.W.1 to establish that the accident was took place on the negligence of petitioner. At the cost of repetition, to substantiate its contention, Insurance company has not placed positive evidence. Neither the driver of offending vehicle nor ocular witnesses to the incident was examined by the insurance company to establish its defence.
13. At this juncture it is worth to refer the decision reported in (2009) 13 SCC 530 between Bimla Devi and others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that, "it is necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants are merely required to establish their case on the SCCH-2 10 M.V.C.No.5465/2021 touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied".
14. At this juncutre, Ex.P.1, Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.19 are relevant for discussion. As per Ex.P.2, complaint was lodged before Malur Police Station on 20.11.2021. Thereafter, as per Ex.P.1, FIR was lodged against the driver of Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-06-D-2889. As per Ex.P.19, charge sheet has been filed against the driver of Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-06-D-2889. Further, the contention of respondent No.2 is that, complaint has been lodged after 4 days of the accident. On perusal of Ex.P.2, it reveals that, the complainant has explained the delay for filing complaint. In other words the complainant has stated that, on account of treatment given to his son, there is a delay in lodging complaint. At this juncture it is worth to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2011 (4) SCC 693, between Ravi Vs. Badrinarayana and Others, wherein it is held that:
"It is well-settled that delay in lodging FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant's case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we cannot except a common man to first rush to the Police Station immediately after an accident. Human nature and family responsibilities occupy the mind of kith and kin to such an SCCH-2 11 M.V.C.No.5465/2021 extent that they give more importance to get the victim treated rather than to rush to the Police Station. Under such circumstances, they are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging the FIR with the Police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim".
15. In cases of delay, the courts are required to examine the evidence with the closer scrutiny and in doing so; the contents of the FIR should also be scrutinized more carefully. If court finds that there is no indication of fabrication or it has not been concocted or engineered to implicate innocent persons then, even if there is a delay in lodging the FIR, the claim case cannot be dismissed merely on that ground. The principles reiterated in the above decision squarely applicable to the facts of the case. The ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court is aptly applicable to the facts of the instant case.
16. Further, on careful perusal of Ex.P.1, Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.19, it appears to this Tribunal that, on the basis of complaint, the police have registered the case against the driver of Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-06-D-2889 and Investigating officer has submitted Charge sheet as per Ex.P.19 after completing investigation. A careful perusal of Ex.P.8, it clearly goes to show that, the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road traffic SCCH-2 12 M.V.C.No.5465/2021 accident. Further, on perusal of Ex.P.19 i.e., final report, it reveals that, the driver of offending vehicle i.e., private Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-06-D-2889 arrayed as accused.
17. Now, it is worth to rely on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in ILR 2003 Karnataka page 493, between Mallamma Vs. Balaju and Others, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held at para 12 as hereunder:
" Filing of the charge sheet against the driver is also a prima-facie case to hold that, the driver of the said lorry was responsible for the accident and burden shifts on him to prove the same".
18. At the cost of repetition, the contents of complaint and charge sheet clearly reveals that when the petitioner was proceeding on the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-08-X-1693, the driver of Private Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-06-D-2889 came in a rash or negligent manner, took 'U' turn to its right side without giving any hand signal or indicators to go to Petrol bunk and dashed against the above said motor cycle. The evidence placed on record clearly reveals that driver of the Private Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-06-D-2889 has caused the accident. It is important to note that, nowhere in the police documents mentioned as to the accident was occurred due to the negligent riding of the petitioner himself. Accordingly, Issue No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.
SCCH-2 13 M.V.C.No.5465/202119. ISSUE No.2:- The 2nd respondent has contended that, the driver of offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence to drive PSV stage carriage class of bus and the R.C. owner has clearly violated of terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, this respondent is not liable to indemnify the insured. However, in order to substantiate their contention, the Assistant Manager of 2nd respondent company examined as R.W.1 by way of filing affidavit in support of his oral examination-in-chief. R.W.1 has reiterated the written statement averments. R.W.1 has not produced any documents to show that, the driver of the offending vehicle has not possessed valid driving licence to drive the said vehicle at the time of accident. Moreover, the charge sheet has been filed against the driver of offending vehicle. Charge sheet submitted by IO does not reveals that driver of offending vehicle was driving the vehicle without valid and effective DL. Apart from that, Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.6 are relevant for discussion Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.6 are the notice issued under Sec.133 of I.M.V. Act and reply. A perusal of Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.6, it appears to this Tribunal that, the owner of the vehicle has furnished the D.L. number of the driver of offending vehicle. Therefore, it appears to this Tribunal that, the driver of the offending vehicle was holding valid D.L. to drive the offending vehicle at the time of accident. Accordingly, Issue No.2 is answered in the Negative.
20. ISSUE No.3:- This issue is with respect to entitlement of relief. Already this Tribunal has observed that, accident was occurred due to rash or negligent driving by the SCCH-2 14 M.V.C.No.5465/2021 driver of Private Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-06-D-2889. The 2 nd respondent is the insurer and the 1 st respondent is the R.C. owner of the offending vehicle. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for compensation. Before going to discuss other aspects, it is appropriate to discuss the age and income of the petitioner.
21. Age:- According to the petitioner, he was aged 32 years as on the date of accident. In order to substantiate the same, the petitioner has produced Ex.P.18, i.e., the notarized copy of Aadhaar Card and the said document discloses that, the date of birth of petitioner is mentioned as 01.08.1989. The accident was occurred on 16.11.2021. Hence, the age of the petitioner as on the date of accident was 32 years. Accordingly the age of the petitioner is considered as 32 years.
22. Income:- In the instant case, the petitioner has stated that, he was a carpenter by profession and earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month. Per-contra, the 2 nd respondent has denied the income of petitioner. To substantiate the income of petitioner, he has not placed any documentary evidence. As such, at this juncture, it is worth to rely on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka decided in M.F.A. No.101144 of 2020 ( MV-I) on 05.07.2023, between Ananda Vs. Arun and Another, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Para 9 (b) as hereunder:
" In the absence of any cogent material on record, it is for the courts and Tribunals to SCCH-2 15 M.V.C.No.5465/2021 assess the income notionally. The notional income fixed by the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority for the accident of the year 2017 is Rs.10,250/-. In the absence of any material produced by the claimant to prove his income, it is appropriate to assess the notional income of the injured claimant at Rs.10,250/- per month, and the same is assessed as the monthly income of the injured claimant".
23. As such the notional income of the petitioner is to be considered by relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka referred to above. As per the notional income fixed by the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority for the accident in the year 2021 is Rs.15,000/- per month. It is pertinent to note that, the accident took place on 16.11.2021. Hence, the notional income of the petitioner is considered as Rs.15,000/- per month.
24. Loss of Future Income due to disability:-
In the instant case, the petitioner has averred that, he has sustained closed undisplaced medial condyle fracture of left femur, total traumatic amputation of left little finger at level of distal interphalageal joint. He has produced wound certificate and discharge summaries, which are marked as Ex.P.8, Ex.P.9 and Ex.P.10. On perusal of Ex.P.9, it reveals that, the petitioner has sustained above mentioned injuries. It is relevant to mention that, respondent No.2 has disputed the injuries caused to P.W.1.SCCH-2 16 M.V.C.No.5465/2021
25. In order to prove the physical disability/injuries, the petitioner examined medical witness namely Dr. Nagaraj B.N., Orthopedic Surgeon, Sai Ortho and Dental Senter as P.W.2. This witness has filed the affidavit in lieu of evidence and stated that on 10.06.2023 the petitioner came to their hospital for the assessment of disability. Further P.W.2 has stated that, on examination, he found that, petitioner having wasting of the left thigh muscles, restricted left knee movements, absent left tip of little finger. Further deposed that, X-ray of left knee shows united fracture and X-ray of the left hand shows amputation of little finger distal and middle phalanx. Further he has deposed that, he has examined the petitioner clinically and radiologically and assessed the disability. Finally he has stated that, petitioner has sustained 36% of physical disability to the lower limb and 12% to the whole body, amputation of the left litter finger 2% and whole body physical disability 14%. In support of his evidence, P.W.2 has produced 2 documents, which are marked as Ex.P.20 and Ex.P.21 i.e., Clinical Notes and one X-ray film. He was cross-examined from the side of 2nd respondent at length. During the course of cross- examination, he has admitted that, he was not the treated doctor. He also admitted that, he has not taken opinion from the treated doctor. He also deposed that, at the time of discharge the petitioner was stable. He also admitted that, fractures are united. He also admitted that, there is also no implants. He also admitted that, he has assessed physical disability only and not functional disability.
SCCH-2 17 M.V.C.No.5465/202126. On perusal of the discharge summary of petitioner and evidence of medical witness coupled with wound certificate clearly reveals that, petitioner has sustained grievous injury and suffered physical disability. It is needless to mention that, P.W.2 has not assessed the functional disability of petitioner. Moreover, the fractures are united. In addition to that, the petitioner has not produced the documents to show that he was doing carpentry. Hence, considering the avocation of petitioner, his age and injuries, the physical disability assessed by the P.W.2 is on higher side. As such, this Tribunal is considered the physical disability of the petitioner as 10% to the whole body.
27. As discussed supra, age of the injured is considered as 32 years and his income is considered as Rs.15,000/- per month. Annual income comes to Rs.1,80,000/-(15,000 x 12). Hence, the proper multiplier applicable to the age of injured as per Sarala Verma case is 16.
28. If we multiplied yearly income with proper multiplier (1,80,000X 16), then it comes to Rs.28,80,000/-. Already this Tribunal has considered the disability of petitioner as 10% to the whole body. 10% of Rs.28,80,000/- (Rs.28,80,000 X 10/100) comes to Rs.2,88,000/-. The same amount of Rs.2,88,000/- is awarded to the Injured/Petitioner under the head of loss of Future Income due to disabiltiy.
29. Medical Expenses:- In the instant case, the petitioner has stated that, he has incurred Rs.1,00,000/-
SCCH-2 18 M.V.C.No.5465/2021towards medical expenses. In order to substantiate the incurring of medical expenses, conveynace etc. The petitioner has produced 27 medical bills as Ex.P.16 for Rs.52,025/- and 11 medical prescriptions as Ex.P.17. After careful perusal of the medical bills, this Tribunal is of the opinion that, petitioner is entitled for Rs.52,025/- towards medical expenses.
30. Pain and suffering:- According to the petitioner, he was shifted to Rathna Hospital, Malur, after first aid, he was shifted to R.L. Jalappa Hospital, Kolar, wherein he was admitted as an inpatient for 2 days and he has undergone conservative line of treatment. P.W.1 has stated that, further on 18.11.2021 he got admitted to Sri Gaurav Orthopaedic and Surgical Hospital, Kolar, wherein he was treated by wound debridement and stump closure of left 5 th digit and he took treatment as an inpatient till 20.11.2021. As per medical records and evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 coupled with Ex.P.9, it appears to this Tribunal that, the petitioner has taken treatment at R.L. Jalappa Hospital as an inpatient from 16.11.2021 to 18.11.2021 for the period of 3 days. Further as per Ex.P.10, it appears that, the petitioner has taken treatment as an inpatient from 18.11.2021 to 20.11.2021 for the period of 3 days. Further as per the evidence of doctor, it appears to this tribunal that, the petitioner has sustained physical disability. There is no serious dispute with regard to inpatient for 5 days. As such, the petitioner suffered a lot of pain and inconvenience. Considering all these aspects, the Tribunal grants SCCH-2 19 M.V.C.No.5465/2021 compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of Pain and Sufferings.
31. Loss of income during the laidup period:- The petitioner has produced discharge summaries and same have been marked as Ex.P.9 and Ex.P.10. On perusal of these documents, it appear to this Tribunal that, the petitioner took treatment as an inpatient for 5 days. However, the petitioner has not produced documents to show that, how many days he has taken bed rest. Naturally it shows that, he might have taken atleast two months rest because of the injuries. He has averred that, he was working as a carpenter and earning monthly salary of Rs.25,000/-. This Tribunal has already assessed the income of petitioner as Rs.15,000/- per month. Hence, two months is to be considered as loss of income during laidup period. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.30,000/- as compensation under the head of loss of income during laid up period.
32. Food, Nourishment and Atttendant charges:-
In so for as food, conveyance, nourishment and other incidental charges are concerned, the petitioner has taken treatment as inpatinet for about 5 days i.e., from 16.11.2021 to 20.11.2021. The petitioner has not produced any documents in this regard. Hence, looking to the injuries sustained and the period of treatment taken by the petitioner, he is entitled for compensation of Rs.8,000/- under the head of Food, Nourishment and Atttendant charges.SCCH-2 20 M.V.C.No.5465/2021
33. Loss of future amenities and happiness:- The petitioner was aged about 32 years at the time of accident. The disability and physical deformity with which the petitioner has to live the rest of his life. Therefore, he might have suffered pain, discomforts in life and loss of amenities. By considering the age, nature of injuries, percentage of disabiltiy, Rs.30,000/- is awarded under this head.
34. Future medical expenses:- The petitioenr has not stated about his future medical expenses. P.W.2 the medical witness has also not stated about the future medical expenses of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for any compensation towards future medical expenses.
35. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for compensation under the following heads:
Heads Amount
1.Towards loss of Future income. Rs. 2,88,000/-
2. Towards Medical Expenses. Rs. 52,025/-
3. Towards Pain & Suffering.
Rs. 40,000/-
4. Loss of income during the laidup
period Rs. 30,000/-
5. Food, Nourishment and Rs. 8,000/-
Atttendant charges
6. Loss of future amenities and Rs. 30,000/-
happiness.
7. Towards future medical expenses. - Nil -
Total. Rs.4,48,025/-
SCCH-2 21 M.V.C.No.5465/2021
Hence, petitioner is entitled for just and reasonable amount of Rs.4,48,025/-.
36. Regarding liability and interest.
The 2nd respondent has denied that, the insured vehicle was having valid and effective permit to ply on the route at which it was alleged to be involved in the accident. Hence, there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy. As such this respondent is not liable to indemnify the 1st respondent. In order to prove their contention, the 2 nd respondent has examined its Assistant Manager as R.W.1. R.W.1 in his affidavit evidence by way of examination in chief deposed that, the R.C. owner of the offending Bus has allowed the bus to ply on the route without permit to run at the alleged spot of accident. R.W.2 has produced Ex.R.3 i.e., the certified copy of Endorsement of Renewal of Permit and Ex.R.4 i.e., the certified copy of Permit. On perusal of Ex.R.2 it appears to this Court that, the accused in C.C.No.1903/2021 has pleaded guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.192A of IMV Act. Further as per Ex.R.4, the route permit was given from Saravanahalli to Bengaluru and back. Therefore, it is crystal clear that, there was no permit to ply the bus at the spot of accident.
37. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 relied on the division bench decisions of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka decided in M.F.A.No.967 of 2017 (M.V.-D) between Sri. Venkatesh Vs. IFFCO Tokyo General Insurance Co. Ltd., and Another and decided in M.F.A.No.6154 of 2019, between SCCH-2 22 M.V.C.No.5465/2021 Hemalatha @ Hema @ Hemavathi and two others Vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., and Another. Per-contra learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2018 ACJ 1768, between Amruth Paul Singh and Another Vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., and Others. Further, counsel for petitioner relied on the division bench decision of our Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka decided in M.F.A.No.417 of 2016, C/w M.F.A.No.2856 of 2016, M.F.A.No.4172 of 2016, between Sriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Smt. Anitha A.G., and Another, Sri. Girish R.B. Vs. Mr. Girish H.K. and Another, Manager, Sriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Girish R.B. and Another. I have carefully gone through the decisions relied by both sides. Out of which, the decision decided between Amrit Paul Singh and Another Vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., and Others is from the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court at para 23 held that, the Tribunal as well as the High Court had directed that, "the insurer was required to pay the compensation amount to the claimants with interest with the stipulation that the insurer shall be entitlted to recover the same from the owner and the driver. The said directions are in consonance with the principles stated in Swaran Singh and Other cases pertaining to pay and recover principle".
38. By relying on the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court, also the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, SCCH-2 23 M.V.C.No.5465/2021 the 2nd respondent is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization and further the 2nd respondent-insurer is at liberty to recover the award amount from the 1 st respondent-R.C. owner of the offending vehicle in accordance with law. Accordingly, Issue No.3 is answered in the partly Affirmative.
39. ISSUE No.4:- In view of discussions made above, I proceed to pass the following.
:ORDER:
Claim Petition filed by the Petitioner U/Sec.166 of M.V. Act is partly allowed with costs of the petition.
Petitioner is awarded just and reasonable compensation of Rs.4,48,025/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand and Twenty Five only) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition to till the date of depositing of the compensation amount in the Tribunal.
Respondent No.2 shall deposit the compensation in the Tribunal within 2 months from the date of this judgment. It is clarified that, the insurer- 2nd respondent is at liberty to recover the award amount from the 1st respondent-owner of the offending vehicle in accordance with law.
SCCH-2 24 M.V.C.No.5465/2021Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw Award Accordingly.
:APPORTIONMENT:
Scheme of investment is dispensed with as amount awarded is too meager.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25th February, 2025).
(H.P. Mohan Kumar) VI Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, and ACJM, MACT, Bengaluru.
: ANNEXURE :
List of witnesses examined for petitioner:
P.W.1 : Sri. Venkatachalapathy N. P.W.2 : Dr. Nagaraj B.N.
List of exhibited documents marked for petitioner:
Ex.P-1 : True copy of FIR pertaining to Cr.No.0379/2021 Ex.P-2 : True copy of complaint. Ex.P-3 : True copy of spot mahazar Ex.P-4 : True copy of vehicle seizure mahazar. Ex.P-5 : True copy of notice issued U/Sec.133 of M.V. Act Ex.P-6 : True copy of reply to notice issued U/Sec.133 of M.V. Act. Ex.P-7 : True copy of M.V.A. Report. Ex.P-8 : True copy of wound certificate. SCCH-2 25 M.V.C.No.5465/2021 Ex.P-9 & : 2 Discharge Summaries. 10 Ex.P-11 to : 4 OPD Sheets. 14 Ex.P-15 : 2 Laboratory reports. Ex.P-16 : 27 Medical bills. Ex.P-17 : 11 Medical prescriptions. Ex.P-18 : Notarized copy of Aadhaar Card pertaining to petitioner. Ex.P-19 : True copy of charge sheet. Ex.P-20 : Clinical Notes. Ex.P-21 : X-ray film.
List of witnesses examined for the Respondents:
R.W.1 : Sri. Himendra Kartantik Simha M.N. List of exhibited documents marked for the Respondents: Ex.R-1 : Authorization letter pertaining to R.W.1. Ex.R-2 : Certified copy of plea framed in C.C.1903/2021. Ex.R-3 : Certified copy of order sheet pertaining to C.C.No.1903/2021 Ex.R-4 : Endorsement of Renewal of Permit.
Ex.R-5 : Certified copy of Permit. Ex.R-6 : True copy of Insurance Policy. Digitally signed by H P HP MOHANKUMAR MOHANKUMAR Date: 2025.03.03 15:06:03 +0530 (H.P. Mohan Kumar) VI Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, and ACJM, MACT, Bengaluru.