Bangalore District Court
Sri.Pyare Jan vs Sri.Hanumantha.N.M on 19 February, 2021
BEFORE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE CITY.
SCCH13
PRESENT: Smt.Parveen A Bankapur,
B.Com.LL.B.(Spl),
Member, MACT,
Holding concurrent charge
of Member, MACT
II ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes,
BENGALURU.
MVC No.2499 of 2017
Dated this the 19th day of February - 2021
PETITIONER: Sri.Pyare Jan, 52 years,
S/o Malanga Shah,
Occ: Driver,
No.2/C120, 5/3 Main Road,
Anipiya Mosque Road,
Kushalnagar, K.G.Halli,
Arabbi College Post,
Bengaluru560 045.
(By Sri.Suresh.M.Latur, Advocate)
.vs.
RESPONDENTS: 1. Sri.Hanumantha.N.M.,
SCCH13 2 MVC NO.2499/2017
S/o Muruga,
No.3587/48, 2nd Cross,
B Block, Gayathri Nagara,
Bengaluru560 021.
(Owner of car No.KA04MQ9416)
(By Sri.Nagaraja.B.H., Advocate)
2. The Manager,
Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co.Ltd,,
Golden Heights, No.1/2,
4th Floor, 59th C Cross,
4th M Block, Rajajinagara,
Bengaluru560 010.
(Insurer of car No.KA04MQ9416)
Policy No.OG171701/1801
00053109 valid from 14.12.2016 to
13.12.2017.
(By Sri.K.Nagaraja, Advocate)
3. Smt.Priyank Kirankumar.T.,
No.24, Muneswara Nilaya,
4th A Cross, Rajashree Layout,
Munnekolala, Bengaluru560 037.
(Owner of car No.KA03MB4461)
(Exparte)
4. The Manager,
ICICI Lombard Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd.,
SCCH13 3 MVC NO.2499/2017
No.89, 2nd Floor, Hosur Main Road,
SVR Complex, Madivala,
Koramangala, Bengaluru560 068.
(Insurer of car No.KA03MB4461)
(Policy No.3001/12658324800/
B00, valid from 24.1.2017 to 23.1.2018
(By Sri.Janardhan Reddy, Advocate)
******
JUDGMENT
This petition is filed by the petitioner U/s 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/ for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident.
2. Brief averments of the petition are as under:
It is alleged that, on 13.02.2017 at about 5.30 p.m., when the Petitioner was travelling in car bearing Reg.No.KA03MB 4461 near N.G.Doddi village, Kanagal Cross, Malavallli Kollegala Main Road, Malavalli taluk, Mandya District, at that time, a car bearing Reg.No.KA04MQ 9416 came with high speed in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger to human life without observing traffic rules and regulations and dashed the petitioner's car from opposite direction. Due to the SCCH13 4 MVC NO.2499/2017 impact, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. It is further submitted that, immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Malavalli Govt.Hospital wherein he took first aid and then shifted to Bowring hospital, Bengaluru, he is still under treatment and he has spent huge amount towards medical, hospital, expenses, conveyance and nourishments etc.,. It is further submitted that, due to the accidental injuries Petitioner is under going deep mental shock, pain and sufferings and untold hardship. It is further submitted that, the Malavalli Police have registered the case against the driver of the car bearing Reg.No.KA04MQ 9416 for the offences punishable under Sec.279, 337 & 338 of IPC. The respondent being owner insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.
3. After service of notice to the respondent No.3, he did not appear before the court and placed exparte. In response to service of notice, the respondent no.1, 2 & 4 appeared through their respective counsels and filed writtenstatements.
The respondent No.1 in his written statement has admitted that he is the owner of the car bearing No.KA04Mq9416 SCCH13 5 MVC NO.2499/2017 which is insured with 2nd respondent and there was valid policy at the time of accident. He has denied all the averments of the petition with regard to the date, place and manner of accident, injuries sustained by the petitioner, treatment undergone and expenses incurred. The age, avocation and income of the petitioner are all denied as false and the petitioner is put to strict proof of the said averments. It is contended that in the event, this Hon'ble Tribunal comes to conclusion that the petitioner is entitle for compensation, then the 2nd respondent is liable to satisfy the award by indemnifying this respondent. the petitioner was driving his auto in a rash and negligent. Further it is contended that the compensation claim is highly excessive, exorbitant and baseless hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
2nd respondent in its written statement has denied all the allegations made in the petition as false and not maintainable either on facts or in law and petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. The respondent admits that the policy of insurance has been issued to vehicle bearing No.KA04NQ9416 and policy was in force at the time of accident however, it has contended that its liability if any is subject to terms and SCCH13 6 MVC NO.2499/2017 conditions of the policy. It has contended that the driver of the said car was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the insured vehicle and hence, the respondent is not liable to indemnify the 1st respondent and pay compensation to the petitioner. As per Sec.134(c) of MV Act, is the mandatory duty of the insured respondent No.1 to furnish the particulars of policy, date, time and place of accident, particulars of damages/injuries and also the name of the driver and his driving licence particulars but the insured has not complied with the statutory demand. Further, the Malavalli Rural Police station failed to forward all the relevant documents to concerned insurance company as per Sec.158(6) of MV Act, hence, this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. Further contended that, the compensation and interest as claimed by the petitioners are exorbitant and excessive. Hence this Respondent has sought for dismissal of the petition with costs.
4th respondent in its writtenstatement has denied all the allegations of the petition, but admitted the issuance of policy in favour of third respondent in respect of car bearing No.KA03 MB4461 however,contended that its liability it any, is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. It is submitted that the SCCH13 7 MVC NO.2499/2017 3rd respondent has not complied with the statutory demand as per Sec.134(c) of MV Act to furnish the policy particulars, date, time and place of accident, particulars of the injured and particulars of driver. Further, it has submitted that as per Sec.158(6) of MV Act, the concerned Police station has not complied the mandatory duty to forward all the relevant documents to the concerned insurer within 30 days. It has contended that the alleged accident was not caused due to 3 rd respondent car bearing No.KA03MB4461 but the accident was due to the offending car bearing No. KA04MQ9416; but the petitioner, insured and the Police have created false story and filed a false case against this respondent to get compensation. It has contended that the third respondent has entrusted his car to the driver who was not having valid driving licence and hence, this respondent is not liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. This respondent denied all the averments with regard to the date, place and manner of accident, injuries alleged to have sustained by the petitioner, the treatment undergone, expenses incurred, the age, avocation and income of the petitioner. Further, it has contended that the compensation claimed is highly excessive, exorbitant and fanciful, hence prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
SCCH13 8 MVC NO.2499/20174. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues were framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, he sustained grievous injuries in RTA on 13.02.2017 at about 5.30 p.m., near NG Doddi village, MalavalliKollegala Main Road, Malavalli Taluk, Mandya District, due to rash and negligent drtiving by the driver of car bearing No.KA04MQ9416?
2. Whether the petitioner proves that he is entitled for compensation as claimed? If so, to what extent and from whom?
4. What Order or Award?
5. During the evidence, the petitioner got examined himself as PW.1, examined two witnesses as PW.2 & 3 and got marked 14 documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14. On the other hand, the Respondent No.4 has examined its Legal Manager as RW.1.
2nd respondent has examined three witness as RW.2 to RW.4 and got marked documents at Ex.R.1 to R.7.
SCCH13 9 MVC NO.2499/20176. Heard the arguments and perused the records. The learned counsel for petitioner has relied following decisions:
1. 2003 ACJ 105 KAR, in between Ramakrishna Reddy Vs Manager, H.T.Ltd., and another
2. 2009 ACJ 406(KAR) in between Subodh Subhash Kakade Vs Appasabad Jinnappa Chougule and another,
3. 2015 ACJ 721 (SC) Jakir Hussain Vs Sabir and others, 4.2014 ACJ 627 (SC) Syed Sadiq and others Vs Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co., Ltd.,
5. 2018 ACJ 690 (SC) (FB)
7. My findings on the above issues are as under: Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative.
Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative Issue No.3 : As per final order :
for the following:
REASONS
8. ISSUE NO.1: In order to prove the actionable negligence, the petitioner examined as PW1. He has his filed his affidavit in lieu of examinationinchief and got marked 14 SCCH13 10 MVC NO.2499/2017 documents. He reiterates the averments and the allegations made in the petition. In the evidence the petitioner ie., PW1 has deposed that, the accident occurred entirely due to rash and negligent driving of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA04MQ 9416 by its driver. During the course of crossexamination nothing has been elicited. Further in the cross examination he stated that he had driving licence to drive the vehicle.
9. Further the petitioner relied in all 14 documents out of which, Ex.P1 is the copy of FIR and Ex.P2 is the copy of complaint lodged by the petitioner, based on which the Malavalli Rural Police registered crime No.43/2017 against driver of the Car for the offences punishable U/s.279, 337 of IPC, Ex.P 3 is the copy of charge sheet filed against the driver of offending Car bearing Reg.No.KA04MQ9416 for the offences punishable U/s279, 338 of IPC and Sec.3/181 of MV Act, Ex.P 4 is the discharge card, Ex.P5 is the driving licence of the petitioner, Ex.P6 is the 10 medical bills, Ex.P7 is the copy of spot panchanama, Ex.P8 is the copy of MVI report, Ex.P9 is the wound certificate of the petitioner issued by Government Hospital, Malavalli, ExP10 to 14 are the other medical documents of the petitioner.
SCCH13 11 MVC NO.2499/201710. From Ex.P1 to 3 and 7 to 9 it is clear that immediately after the said accident crime was registered against the driver of Car bearing Reg.No.KA04MQ9416 , after detailed investigation I.O. filed charge sheet against the driver of car bearing Reg.No.KA04MQ9416. No doubt that the counsel for the respondents though crossexamined PW1 nothing has been elicited in his cross examination.
11. Respondent No.4 and 2 have examined their legal Managers as RW1 and 4. RW2 is the investigation officer has produced the notice issued U/s 133 of MV Act and also produced reply notice of the accused as per Ex.R1 and 2. RW3 is the ARTO, he deposed that, driver of the offending vehicle was not holding DL at the time of accident.
12. Besides, as has been stated above, the jurisdictional police have investigated the accident in question and filed the A charge sheet at Ex.P3 wherein the police have made specific allegation that the accident in question had taken place because of the actionable negligence of the driver Car bearing Reg.No. KA04MQ9416 ie., respondent No.3. Besides, the respondent has not produced anything to show that they have challenged SCCH13 12 MVC NO.2499/2017 the correctness of the A charge sheet filed by the jurisdictional police; hence, it is sufficient to conclude that the materials available on record are sufficient to conclude that the accident in question had taken place because of the actionable negligence of the rider of the offending vehicle.
13. Besides, it is well settled that in motor vehicle accident compensation cases the strict proof of negligence is not required. This view of this court receives support from the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in 2009 (13)SCCpage530 in the case of Bimla Devi and others Vs Himachalapradesh Road Transport Corporation and another and another decision reported in AIR 2011SC 1504 in the case of Parameshwari Vs Amir Chand and others. Thus, even this ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court is also sufficient to conclude that this court is not supported to look for strict proof of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending Car bearing Reg.No.KA04MQ9416.
14. The next question would be, whether the petitioner was sustained grievous injuries in the accident. It is relevant SCCH13 13 MVC NO.2499/2017 to note that the petitioner has produced the Ex.P 9 is the wound certificate of the petitioner issued by Government Hospital, Malavalli, and Ex.P4 is the discharge summary of the petitioner and Ex.P6 is the 10 medical bills of the petitioner. Therefore, after considering all medical documents it is proved that petitioner was sustained injuries due to the accident and all the police documents and evidence of PW1 to 3, in my opinion, the petitioner has proved that the said accident was only because of actionable negligence on the part of the driver of offending vehicle and he sustained grievous injuries. With these observations, I have answered issue No.1 in the Affirmative.
Issue No. 2:
15. The petitioner has sustained injuries in the said accident. He has relied upon Ex.P.9 wound certificate issued by government hospital, and Ex.P.4 discharge summary, wherein it appears that, petitioner was sustained following injury i.e., Type II open fracture of left olecranon, Loss of two teeth, injuries to lips and other injuries all over the body. According to wound certificate said injuries are grievous in nature. In view of the findings recorded on issue No.1, the petitioner has SCCH13 14 MVC NO.2499/2017 suffered injuries because of the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of offending car. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for the compensation.
16. It is the case of the petitioner that, after the accident he was shifted to Government Hosptial, Malavalli and took first aid treatment and shifted to Bowiring and Lady Curzon Hospital, wherein he took treatment and under gone surgery, wherein he admitted on 14022017 and discharged on 2002 2017, hence he admitted for a period of 7 days. During this period the he under went surgery and discharged with advise for followup treatment. I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has suffered severely due to the accidental injuries. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of a sum of Rs.20,000/ towards Pain and sufferings.
17. Further, it can be said that the petitioner must have incurred some amount for transportation and also spent some amount towards attendant charges, food and nourishment. Since, the petitioner has taken treatment as an inpatient in the hospital. Thus, I deem it just and proper to award Rs.15,000/ SCCH13 15 MVC NO.2499/2017 towards Attendant, food, conveyance and other incidental expenses.
18. It is stated in the petition as well as in the evidence of P.W.1 that, he has spent Rs.25,000/ towards medical expenses. In order to substantiate the same, the petitioner has produced only 10Medical Bills at Ex.P.6 amounting to Rs.6862/. Taking into consideration of the nature of the injury sustained by the petitioner, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner must have incurred expenses towards medicines and treatment. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that, the petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.6,862/ towards Medical Expenses.
19. The case of the petitioner is that, at the time of accident he was healthy and was Auto driver and he is earning Rs.15000/ per month. In this regard he has produced his driving licence, but he has not produced with regard to his income. In the absence of material evidence and taking into consideration of the age of the petitioner, date of accident and his avocation and present day condition, if the monthly income SCCH13 16 MVC NO.2499/2017 of the petitioner is inferred at Rs.8,000/ p.m., that would meet the ends of justice. The nature of injuries requires followup treatment. Taking all these facts into consideration, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner could not attend to his avocation i.e., during the period of treatment and rest. Hence, the compensation of Rs.5,000/ is awarded towards Loss of income during the period of treatment.
20. It is the evidence of PW.1 that, due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he is suffering from permanent disability due injuries.
As per police records and hospital records his age was 52 years at the time of accident. Further, the PW.1 has produced his DL at Ex.P.5. According to it, date of birth of the Petitioner mentioned as 21061964 and the accident had occurred in the year2017. According to Ex.P.5 petitioner was aged 53 years at the time of accident. Under such circumstances, it can safely be presumed that, the age of the petitioner was 53 years as on the date of the accident. Therefore, the proper multiplier applicable to the petitioner is '11'.
SCCH13 17 MVC NO.2499/201721. Further, the petitioner examined Dr.S.A.Somashekara, Orthopaedic Surgeon at Bowring and Lady Curzon hospital, Bengaluru as PW.2, he has produced Ex.P.10 to 13, OPD card and Xray and case sheet of the petitioner, he deposed before this tribunal that, recently he examined the petitioner for disabilities assessments he has been evaluated as per specified guidelines of the disabilities. Further he deposed that, the petitioner suffering pain and diffculty to using left upper limb for activities of daily living and also inability to lifting wright and carrying over hard activities. Further, he deposed that, disability of upper left limb at 28% and that of his whole body disability at 14%.
22. During the course of cross examination he admits that, fractures are united. Admittedly he has not a treated doctor, except seeing the wound certificate and discharge summary and case sheet, he has not seen the any treatment records. So by considering above discussions and also on going through line of treatment given to the petitioner this tribunal opines that, 28% of upper limbs disability and 14% of whole body disability assessed by this witness is is on higher side, this Tribunal has assessed the disability of the petitioner at 10% to the whole SCCH13 18 MVC NO.2499/2017 body and it would meet the ends of justice. Therefore, for the above reasons and discussions, the loss of future earning capacity works as under;
Rs.8000/ x 12 x 11 x 10% = Rs.1,05,600/.
The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,05,600/ under the head of loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability.
23. The petitioner has stated that, due to his disability he unable to do work as he was doing before the accident. Any how by considering overall evidence I am of the view that petitioner has loss of amenities in his life, hence petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.10,000/ towards loss of amenities.
24. PW.2 stated that, in his evidence that he recommended for another surgery for removal of implants which would cost around Rs.30,000/ in a private set up. By considering the injuries sustained by the petitioner and treatment taken for the said injuries this tribunal opined that, SCCH13 19 MVC NO.2499/2017 the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.10,000/ for future medical expenses and this amount does not carry any future interest. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that, the petitioner is entitled for the compensation under the following heads;
1. Pain and suffering. : Rs. 20,000/
2. Food and Nourishment, : Rs. 15,000/ conveyance and attendant charges.
3. Medical expenses : Rs. 6,862/
4. Loss of income during the : Rs. 5,000/ period of treatment.
5. Loss of Future earnings. : Rs. 1,05,600/
6. Loss of amenities Rs. 10,000/
7. Future Medical expenses. : Rs. 10,000/ Total Rs. 1,72,462/ Hence, the petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,72,462/ which can be rounded off Rs.1,72,500/. Accordingly petitioner is entitled Rs.1,72,500/ only.
Liability: SCCH13 20 MVC NO.2499/2017
25. In this case, as already discussed in the Issue No.1 and 2 it is clear that, the accident was occurred due to main negligence on the part of the driver of the offending car bearing Reg.No.KA04MQ9416. The respondent No.2 being the insurer and respondent No.1 being the owner of offending car bearing Reg.No.KA04MQ9416 is not in dispute.
26. The respondent No.2 has admitted about the issuance of insurance policy in respect of offending car and policy was in force as on the date of the accident. Even though, respondent No.2 has taken several contentions in his written statement, he has not proved the same by placing materials on record. The main contention taken by the respondent No.2 is that, the driver of offending vehicle was not holding driving licence to drive the car. Hence, it is violation of the policy condition and respondent No.2 is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. On perusal of the charge sheet filed by the IO against the driver of the offending vehicle at Ex.P3 reveals that, on the date of accident the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding driving licence. The charge sheet filed for the offence punishable U/s 3 R/w 181 of MV Act. Further, the counsel for respondent No.2 has vehemently PW2 IO of the accident case SCCH13 21 MVC NO.2499/2017 deposed that, as per reply notice given by the owner of the vehicle that the driver of the car was not having driving licence on the date of accident. Respondent No.2 further examined ARTO who deposed that, no any driving licence issued in the name of the driver of the offending vehicle by name Hanumantha S/o Muraga. In such circumstances, for all these material evidence placed are record shows that as on the date of the accident the driver of the offending vehicle was not having driving licence to drive the car. Therefore it is violation of condition of the policy and respondent No.2 insurance company was not liable to pay compensation. But in the decision AIR 2018 Supreme Court 592 in between Pappu and Ors Vs Vinod Kumar Lamba and Anr, wherein Lordships held that, " Motor Vehicles Act 1988 Sec.1449 Insurer's liability Accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of truckinsurer taking plea that driver of offending truck had not valid licnce Except copy of driving licence of person, owner of offending truck not producing that it was driven by authorized person having valid driving licence Fact that offending truck was duly insured Would not per se make insurance company liable However, insurance company directed to pay award amount to claimants in first instance and in turn, recover same from owner of vehicle".
SCCH13 22 MVC NO.2499/2017On careful reading of above decision and principles laid down, in present case also the driver of the car was not holding valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident. Hence, in view of the above decision, insurance company directed to pay the award amount to claimants in first instance and in turn, recover same from the owner of the vehicle.
In another matter also Hon'ble Apex Court, in Civil Appeal Nos.90789079/2017 in between Rani and others Vs National Insurance Company and other, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held same above view.
Further, in 2018 ACJ 697, in between Original Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs P.K. Sukumaran and others, wherein, Hon'ble Apex court held that, breach of conditions of policy is proved by the insurance company even then insurance company has to pay the compensation first and later has to be recovered from the owner of the vehicle.
27. As already discussed above, the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving licence to drive the car. Hence, even though the respondent No.1 owner has violated the SCCH13 23 MVC NO.2499/2017 conditions of the policy but in view of principles of above referred decisions respondent No.2 being insurer shall at the first instance paid the above compensation amount with liberty to recover the same from respondent No.1.
By considering the present days FD rate of interest in the nationalized bank it is just and necessary to direct the respondent No.2 to pay the compensation amount with interest at the rate of 7% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment. Accordingly, I answered Issue No.2 Partly in the Affirmative.
28. ISSUE No.3: In view of above discussion and findings, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner under Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.1,72,500/ with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.SCCH13 24 MVC NO.2499/2017
The respondent No.2 being insurer is directed to deposit the above amount before Tribunal within two months from the date of this order with liberty to recover the same from the respondent No.1.
The petition against Respondent No.3 and 4 is hereby dismissed.
After deposit, 50%shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner in any nationalized or scheduled bank for a period of 3 years and remaining balance amount with accrued interest shall be released in his favour through RTGS/NEFT by way of Epayment.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, and transcription of the same was corrected by me and pronounced in the open court, on this the 19th day of February - 2021).
(Smt.Parveen A Bankapur) C/c II ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bengalufru.SCCH13 25 MVC NO.2499/2017
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: PW.1 : Pyare Jan PW.2 : Dr.S.A.Somashekar PW.3 : Shah Azeem LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: Ex.P.1 : True copy of FIR Ex.P.2 : True copy of complaint Ex.P.3 : True copy Charge sheet Ex.P.4 : Discharge summary Ex.P.5 : Original DL of petitioner Ex.P.6 : Medical bills (10 in Nos.) Ex.P.7 : True Copy of Crime details form Ex.P.8 : True Copy MVA Report Ex.P.9 : True Copy of wound certificate Ex.P.10 : OPD card with examination report Ex.P.11 : A recent Xray Ex.P.12 : Old Xray Ex.P.13 : Case sheet Ex.P.14 : Notarized copy of Aadhaar card of PW.3 (Original perused and returned back) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS: RW.1 : T.D.Nithin RW.2 : Ramesh RW.3 : R.Chandrashekar SCCH13 26 MVC NO.2499/2017 RW.4 : Prerana.V.N. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS: Ex.R.1 : True copy of Notice under Sec.133 Ex.R.2 : True copy of Reply to notice under Sec.133 Ex.R.2 : Authorization letter with endorsement Ex.R.4 : Postal cover Ex.R.5 : Postal receipt Ex.R.6 : Letter issued by Bajaj Allianz Gen.Ins.Co. Ltd.
Ex.R.7 : True copy of Policy.
C/c II ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bengaluru.SCCH13 27 MVC NO.2499/2017
(Order pronounced in open court vide separate judgment.) ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner under Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.1,72,500/ with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.
The respondent No.2 being insurer is directed to deposit the above amount before Tribunal within two months from the date of this order with liberty to recover the same from the respondent No.1.
The petition against Respondent No.3 and 4 is hereby dismissed.
After deposit, 50%shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner in any nationalized or SCCH13 28 MVC NO.2499/2017 scheduled bank for a period of 3 years and remaining balance amount with accrued interest shall be released in his favour through RTGS/NEFT by way of Epayment.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/.
Draw award accordingly.
C/c II ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bengaluru.SCCH13 29 MVC NO.2499/2017
AWARD SCCH NO.13 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA : BANGALORE CITY MVC No.2499/2017 PETITIONER: Sri.Pyare Jan, 52 years, S/o Malanga Shah, Occ: Driver, No.2/C120, 5/3 Main Road, Anipiya Mosque Road, Kushalnagar, K.G.Halli, Arabbi College Post, Bengaluru560 045.
(By Sri.Suresh.M.Latur, Advocate) vs RESPONDENTS: 1. Sri.Hanumantha.N.M., S/o Muruga, No.3587/48, 2nd Cross, B Block, Gayathri Nagara, Bengaluru560 021.
(Owner of car No.KA04MQ9416) (By Sri.Nagaraja.B.H., Advocate)
2. The Manager, Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co.Ltd,, Golden Heights, No.1/2, SCCH13 30 MVC NO.2499/2017 4th Floor, 59th C Cross, 4th M Block, Rajajinagara, Bengaluru560 010.
(Insurer of car No.KA04MQ9416) Policy No.OG171701/1801 00053109 valid from 14.12.2016 to 13.12.2017.
(By Sri.K.Nagaraja, Advocate)
3. Smt.Priyank Kirankumar.T., No.24, Muneswara Nilaya, 4th A Cross, Rajashree Layout, Munnekolala, Bengaluru560 037.
(Owner of car No.KA03MB4461) (Exparte)
4. The Manager, ICICI Lombard Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd., No.89, 2nd Floor, Hosur Main Road, SVR Complex, Madivala, Koramangala, Bengaluru560 068.
(Insurer of car No.KA03MB4461) (Policy No.3001/12658324800/ B00, valid from 24.1.2017 to 23.1.2018 (By Sri.Janardhan Reddy, Advocate) ****** SCCH13 31 MVC NO.2499/2017 WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the petitioner/s above named U/Sec.166 of the M.V.C. Act, praying for the compensation of Rs.
(Rupees ) for
the injuries sustained by the petitioner/Death of in
a motor Accident by vehicle No.
WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before
Sri/Smt.Parveen A Bankapur, C/c II Addl.Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. Advocate for respondent.
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner under Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.1,72,500/ with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.
SCCH13 32 MVC NO.2499/2017The respondent No.2 being insurer is directed to deposit the above amount before Tribunal within two months from the date of this order with liberty to recover the same from the respondent No.1.
The petition against Respondent No.3 and 4 is hereby dismissed.
After deposit, 50%shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner in any nationalized or scheduled bank for a period of 3 years and remaining balance amount with accrued interest shall be released in his favour through RTGS/NEFT by way of Epayment.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day of 2021.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: Bangalore.
By the
Petitioner/s Respondent
No.1 No.2
____________________________________________________ SCCH13 33 MVC NO.2499/2017 Court fee paid on petition 1000 Process Pleaders Fee ________________________________________________ Total Rs.
Decree Drafted Scrutinised by
Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR. MEMBER
MACT.,BENGALURU.