Bangalore District Court
Deepak.D vs Kumar.N on 2 April, 2016
IN THE COURT OF III ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU. (SCCH-18)
Dated: This 2nd day of April 2016
Present: SRI.VEERANNA SOMASEKHARA
B.Com, LL.B.,
III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE &
MEMBER, MACT
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BANGALORE.
M.V.C.No.4208/2014
PETITIONER: Deepak.D.
S/o. Divakar.H.s.
Aged about 24 years,
R/a No. 71,
IInd Main Road,
Anugraha Layout,
Kodichikkanahalli,
Bangalore-560 076.
(By Pleader Sri.MM)
/Vs./
RESPONDENT: 1. Kumar.N.
S/o.Navanitha,
No.69, 1st Main,
IInd Cross, Prakashnagar,
Bangalore-560 021.
(Exparte)
2 MVC.No.4208/2014
SCCH-18
2. Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd.,
5th Floor, East Wingh,
Centenary Building,
M.G.Road,
Bangalore-560 001.
(By Pleader Sri.YPV)
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner has filed this petition against the respondents U/Sec.166 of M.V. Act seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident.
2. The brief contents of petition averments are as under:
On 20-09-2014 at about 3.00 A.M., the petitioner and others were traveling in a car bearing registration No.KA-05-AC-9730 and when the said car reached near Vettuvanam temple, Tamilnadu, at that time, the driver of the said car was drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit to the lorry which was proceeding in front of the car. Due 3 MVC.No.4208/2014 SCCH-18 to the said impact, the petitioner and other inmates of the car have sustained grievous injuries. Thereafter the public gathered at the spot have shifted the injured/petitioner to Fortis Malar hospital, Chennai, wherein he has taken treatment as an inpatient and underwent surgery. After discharge from the hospital and as per the version of the doctor, he has taken following treatment as an outpatient in various hospital. The contention of the petitioner is that, he has spent more than Rs.1,50,000/- towards medical, expenses, conveyance and other incidental expenses.
3. The contention of petitioner is that, he was hale and healthy at the time accident, aged about 24 years, working as a Quality Assurance Engineer in Amazon Company and drawing Rs.29,000/-p.m. and incentives. Further the contention of the petitioner is that, due to the accidental injuries, he has suffered lot and he is not in a position to work as he was doing earlier to 4 MVC.No.4208/2014 SCCH-18 the accident. The respondent No.1 is the owner and the respondent No.2 is the insurer of the car and the policy was in force as on the date of accident. The accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car and as such, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Contending the above facts, he prays to grant for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest and cost.
4. In response to the petition notice, the respondent No.2 has appeared before the court through his counsel and filed the objection statement. On the other hand, the respondent No.1 has not appeared before the court. Accordingly, he was placed exparte.
5. The brief contents of objection statement of respondent No.2 are as under:
5 MVC.No.4208/2014
SCCH-18 The respondent No.2 has contended that, the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Further the respondent no.2 has admitted the issuance of policy to the alleged car and the liability if any is subject to the terms and condition mentioned in the policy. Further the respondent No.2 has contended that, the alleged car is a commercial passenger vehicle and if the said vehicle is plied in particular place, then there should be a valid permit to plied on the particular place. Further he contended that, on the alleged date and time of accident, the said car was not having valid permit to ply on the alleged spot of accident and as such, the owner of the vehicle has violated the policy conditions. Further the respondent No.2 has denied the age, occupation and income of the petitioner and also injury sustained by him and medical expenses incurred by him. Further he contended that, accident has not occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of 6 MVC.No.4208/2014 SCCH-18 the alleged car. Contending the above facts, the respondent prays to dismiss the petition as against him.
6. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues were framed:
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he had sustained grevious injuries in an accident that was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the CAR bearing Reg. No.KA-05-AC-
9730 on 20-9-2014 at about 3.00.P.m., near Vettuvanam Temple , on Ambur to Vellore National Highway Road, Vellore District?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed? If so, at what rate and from whom?
3. What order or award?
7. In order to prove the case, the petitioner has examined himself as PW-1 and got marked the documents as Ex-P-1 to 6.
7 MVC.No.4208/2014
SCCH-18
8. To disprove the case of the petitioner and to prove the defence, the respondent No.2 has examined its official as Rw-1 and got marked the documents as Ex.R.1 & 2.
9. Heard the arguments and perused the records.
10. My findings to the aforesaid issues are as follows:
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative Issue No.2: In the Partly Affirmative Issue No.3: As per final order for the following:
R E A S O N S
11. ISSUE NO.1:-. During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued by reiterating the contents of petition averments and also evidence put forth by P.w.1. Further he argued that, the defence of the respondent No.2 is that, there was a delay of 5 days in lodging the complaint and as such, the alleged car was not at all involved in the alleged accident. To prove the said fact, though the respondent No.2 has examined its official as RW-1, but his evidence is not 8 MVC.No.4208/2014 SCCH-18 supported with proper documents to disbelieve the version of the petitioner regarding the involvement of the vehicle in the accident. On the other hand, to prove the involvement of the vehicle in the accident and also to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car, the petitioner has relied upon the copy of police investigation papers and on perusal of those documents, it is clear that, the accident has occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the driver of the alleged car. Further he argued that, the father of the petitioner has lodged the complaint before the concerned police by delay of 5 days, but he has properly explained the said delay. Further he argued that, the petitioner has proved his case as contended in the petition. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.
12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 argued by reiterating the contents of objection statement filed by the respondent No.2 and also evidence put forth by 9 MVC.No.4208/2014 SCCH-18 RW-1. Further he argued that, to prove the involvement of the vehicle and rash and negligent act of the driver of the alleged car, the petitioner has not produced the copy of Charge sheet and as such, till today, the investigation of the case is in progress. Further he argued that, on perusal of the documents produced by the petitioner, it shows that, there was a delay of 5 days in lodging the complaint, but the petitioner has not properly explained the said delay. Further he argued that, the specific contention of the respondent No.2 is that, on the date of alleged accident, the alleged car was not having valid permit to plied within the jurisdiction of Tamilnadu state and as such, the owner of the vehicle has violated the policy conditions. Hence, the respondent No.2 being the insurer of the alleged car is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Further he argued that, the above contention of the respondent No.2 is supported with documents. Further he argued that, to prove the alleged 10 MVC.No.4208/2014 SCCH-18 disablement suffered by the petitioner, he has not examined the doctor and as such, he is not entitled for compensation under the head of loss of future income. Further he argued that, the petitioner has failed to prove his occupation and income as contended in the petition by producing proper documents and also he has failed to prove his case as narrated in the petition. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition as against the respondent No.2.
13. On rival contention urged by both the counsel, I intend to discuss the merits of the case.
On perusal of the records, it reveals that, to prove the case, the petitioner has examined himself as P.W.1 and he has stated in his evidence by reiterating the contents of petition averments. Further in support of his evidence, he has produced the documents and the same are marked as Ex.P.1 to 6. 11 MVC.No.4208/2014
SCCH-18
14. Thereafter the counsel for the respondent No.2 has cross-examined the PW-1 at length. In the cross-examination, the PW-1 has clearly stated at Page No. 5 & 8 that:
"CfðAiÀÄ°è PÁtô¹zÀ C¥ÀWÁvÀªÁUÀ®Ä PÁgï ZÁ®PÀ£ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà jÃw PÁgÀt EgÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. C¥ÀWÁvÀªÁzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è PÁgÀ£ÀÄß ZÁ®PÀ£ÀÄ UÀAmÉUÉ 60 Q.«Äà ªÉÃUÀ«ÄwAiÀÄ°è ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝ."
"C¥ÀWÁvÀªÀÅ ¯Áj ZÁ®PÀ£À vÀ¦à¤AzÀ DVzÀÝgÀÆ PÀÆqÀ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä PÁgï ZÀÁ®PÀ£À «gÀÄzÀÝ ¸ÀļÀÄî ¦üAiÀiÁðzÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖgÀĪɪÉAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è."
On perusal of the above evidence, it appears that, the defence of the respondent No.2 is that, the alleged accident has not occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of the car. On the other hand, the alleged accident has occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of the unknown lorry.
15. To prove the said fact, the respondent No.2 has examined its official as Rw-1, who has stated in his evidence by 12 MVC.No.4208/2014 SCCH-18 reiterating the contents of objection statement filed by the respondent No.2.
But on perusal of evidence of Rw-1, it shows that, he is not en eye-witness to the incident and as such, his evidence is not much helpful regarding the contention taken by the respondent No.2.
16. Further to prove involvement of the said car in the alleged accident and also to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the alleged car, the petitioner has relied upon the copy of FIR and copy of Inspection report of Motor vehicle issued by Motor vehicle inspector and the same are marked as Ex.P.1 & 2. On perusal of Ex.P.1 & 1(a) i.e. copy of FIR and its English translation, it appears that, the Pallikonda police have registered a case against the driver of the car bearing registration No.KA-05-AC-9730 and conducted the investigation.
13 MVC.No.4208/2014
SCCH-18 Further on perusal of Ex.P.2, it appears that, as per the request of concerned police, the Motor vehicle inspector has inspected of alleged car and issued the inspection report to that effect. Further on perusal of evidence of Pw-1 coupled with Ex.P.1 & 1(a), it appears that, there was a delay of 5 days in lodging the complaint. But the father of the petitioner has properly explained the said delay in lodging the complaint.
17. Further on perusal of Ex.P.3 i.e. Discharge summary, wherein it is clearly mentioned the history is under:
"Patient was admitted with alleged history of RTA, traveling in 4 wheeler hit a truck around 3.00 A.M. near Vellore on 20-09-2014"
Considering the above facts, and also looking to the contents of Discharge summary coupled with contents of FIR, I am of the opinion that, the petitioner has proved the 14 MVC.No.4208/2014 SCCH-18 involvement of the vehicle in the complainant and also proved the rash and negligent act of the driver of the car.
On the other hand, as stated above that, to disprove the version of the petitioner, the respondent No.2 has not examined any independent witness who have seen the accident and also not examined the driver of the alleged car. Considering the above facts and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the contention of the respondent No.2 is not acceptable one.
18. Further on perusal of evidence of PW-1 coupled with documents and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the petitioner has proved the alleged accident as narrated in the petition and also proved the rash and negligent act of the driver of the alleged car by producing oral and documentary evidence.
15 MVC.No.4208/2014
SCCH-18
19. Further on perusal of Discharge summary, it appears that, the petitioner has sustained injury in the above said accident.
20. On appreciation of evidence of PW-1 coupled with documents and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the petitioner has proved this issue by producing oral and documentary evidence. Accordingly, I answer this issue is in the affirmative.
21. ISSUE NO.2:- The specific contention of the petitioner is that, he was hale and healthy at the time of accident, aged about 24 years, working as a Quality Assurance Engineer in Amazon Company and drawing salary of Rs.29,000/-p.m. with incentives. Further the contention of the petitioner is that, due to the accidental injuries, he has suffered lot and he is not in a position to work as he was doing earlier to the accident and he has suffered permanent disablement. On 16 MVC.No.4208/2014 SCCH-18 the other hand, the respondent No.2 has disputed the above said facts in toto.
On perusal of the records, it appears that, to prove the alleged disablement, the petitioner has not examined the doctor and as such, he is not entitled for compensation under the head of loss of future earnings.
22. Further to prove the injuries sustained by the petitioner, he has not produced the copy of wound certificate. On the other hand, he has relied upon the discharge summary issued by Fortis Malar Hospital, Chennai. On perusal of discharge summary, it shows that, the petitioner has sustained injury to eye lid laceration with skin loss and also loss of skin over the lid margin. Further on perusal of discharge summary, it appears that, the petitioner has taken treatment as an inpatient for a period of 4 days at Fortis Malar Hospital, Chennai and underwent surgery for eye lid repair. Further on perusal of 17 MVC.No.4208/2014 SCCH-18 discharge summary, wherein the age of the petitioner is shown as 24 years as on the date of accident. Considering the above facts and looking to the nature of injury, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.25,000/-under the head of pain and suffering.
23. Further as stated above that, the petitioner has taken treatment as an inpatient for a period of 4 days at Fortis Malar Hospital, Chennai. Further on perusal of outpatient bills produced by the petitioner, it shows that, after discharge from the hospital, he has taken treatment as an outpatient at Fortis Hospital, Bangalore. Considering the above facts, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.5,000/-under the head of attendant, nourishment and conveyance charges.
24. Further to prove the occupation and income, the petitioner has produced the copy of letter of appointment issued by Amazon Company and the same is marked as Ex.P.6. on 18 MVC.No.4208/2014 SCCH-18 perusal of Ex.P.6, it shows that, the petitioner was appointed as Quality Assurance Engineer in Amazon Company with effect from 18-08-2014 and the salary of the petitioner is fixed Rs.29,000/-p.m. with incentives of Rs.5,850/-p.m.
25. On perusal of the above documents, it is clear that, at the time of accident, the petitioner written statement working as a Quality Assurance Engineer at Amazon Company. Further as stated above that, the petitioner has sustained injury to Eye lid laceration and skin loss and underwent surgery. Considering the above facts, I am of the opinion that, due to the injuries sustained by the petitioner, he might not have attended his regular work at least for a period of 1 month as he was hospitalized for a period of 4 days. Considering the above facts, I am of the opinion that, if one month salary is awarded, under the head of loss of income during laid up period and rest period, certainly it would meet the ends of justice. For the 19 MVC.No.4208/2014 SCCH-18 above reason, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.25,000/-under the head of loss of income during laid up period and rest period.
26. The contention of the petitioner is that, he has spent more than Rs.1,50,000/-towards medical expenses and other incidental charges. To prove the said fact, the petitioner has relied upon the medical bills and prescriptions and the same are marked as Ex.P.4 & 5. On the other hand, the respondent No.2 has disputed the genuineness of the medical bills and to that effect, the counsel for the respondent No.2 has cross- examined the P.W.1 at length, but nothing has been elicited from him to disbelieve those bills. On the other hand, on perusal of the medical bills, it shows that, the petitioner has spent an amount of Rs.88,989/-towards medical expenses. Considering the above facts, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for 20 MVC.No.4208/2014 SCCH-18 compensation of Rs.89,000/-under the head of medical expenses.
27. Further as stated above that, the petitioner has sustained injury to eye lid laceration with skin loss and underwent surgery. Due to the said injuries, the petitioner might have suffered some extent of disfigurement and as such, if some amount is granted under the head of disfigurement, certainly it would meet the ends of justice. Hence, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.30,000/- under the head of disfigurement.
Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,74,000/- under all the above conventional heads.
28. LIABILITY: On perusal of the contents of petition and objection statement, it appears that, the respondent No.1 is the 21 MVC.No.4208/2014 SCCH-18 owner and the respondent No.2 is the insurer of the car bearing registration No.KA-05-AC-9730. Further on perusal of Ex.R.1 i.e copy of policy, it shows that, the policy was in force as on the date of accident.
29. The specific contention of the respondent No.2 is that, the alleged accident has occurred within the jurisdiction of Tamilnadu State, whereas the owner of the car has obtained the permit for plying the alleged car within the jurisdiction Karnataka State and as such, the owner of the vehicle has violated the policy conditions.
30. To prove the said fact, the official of the respondent No.2 company has examined himself as Rw-1 and he has stated in his evidence by reiterating the contents of objection statement. Further in support of his evidence, he has produced the copy of policy and copy of permit and the same are marked as Ex.R.1 & 2.
22 MVC.No.4208/2014
SCCH-18
31. Thereafter the counsel for the petitioner has cross- examined the RW-1 at length. In the cross-examination, the RW-1 has clearly admitted at Page No.4, 5, 7 & 9 that:
"AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà MAzÀÄ ªÁºÀ£ÀªÀÅ MAzÀÄ gÁdåzÀ°è NqÁqÀ®Ä ¥À«Äðmï ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ, £ÀAvÀgÀ D ªÁºÀ£ª À À£ÀÄß ¨ÉÃgÀÉà gÁdåzÀ°è Nr¸À®Ä vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ, CAvÀºÀªÁºÀ£PÀ ÉÌ D gÁdåzÀ ¸ÁjUÉ ¥ÀÁæ¢Pü ÁgÀzÀªÀgÀÄ vÁvÁÌ°PÀ ¥À«Äðmï PÉÆqÀĪÀ «µÀAiÀÄ £À£UÀ É UÉÆwÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj vÁvÁÌ°PÀ ¥À«Äðmï£ÀÄß MAzÀÄ gÁdåPÉÌ JAnæ PÉÆqÀĪÁUÀ, C°è EgÀĪÀ ZÉPï ¥ÉÆøïÖ£À°èAiÉÄà PÉÆqÀĪÀgÉAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. CfðAiÀÄ°è PÁtô¹zÀ PÁgïUÉ C¥ÀWÁvÀzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀzÀAzÀÄ gÁwæ 10B39 UÀAmÉUÉ vÁvÁÌ°PÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁ£ÀV vÀ«Ä¼ÀÄ£ÁqÀÄ gÁdå¢AzÀ ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀgÉAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è."
"C¥ÀWÁvÀzÀ ¢£ÀzÀAzÀÄ PÁgï£ÀÄß vÀ«Ä¼ÀÄ£ÁqÀÄ gÁdåzÀ°è NqÁr¸À®Ä ¥ÀgÀªÁ£ÀV EgÀ°®èªÉAzÀÄ vÉÆÃj¸À®Ä £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ zÁR¯É ºÁQ®èªÉAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¸À¯ÁV, ºËzÀÄ ºÁQ®è, PÁgÀt, CzÀgÀ §UÉÎ «ªÀgÀ zÉÆgÀQ®èªÀÉAzÀÄ ¸ÁQë ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ."
"¤.Dgï.2 JAzÀÄ UÀÄgÀÄw¹zÀ zÁR¯ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß DzÀsj¹, C¥ÀWÁvÀzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è PÁgïUÉ vÀ«Ä¼ÀÄ£ÁqÀÄ gÁdåzÀ vÁvÁÌ°PÀ ¥À«Äðmï EgÀ°®èªÉAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ºÉüÀĪɣÉAzÀgÉ ¸Àj."
On perusal of the above evidence, it is clear that, the evidence of Rw-1 is not supported with proper documents. On 23 MVC.No.4208/2014 SCCH-18 the other hand, on perusal of Ex.R.2, it appears that, the alleged car was having permit to ply through out Karnataka State.
32. Further on perusal of evidence of Rw-1, it appears that, he has clearly admitted in his cross-examination that, if any vehicle enters from State to another State, then the owner of the said vehicle has to obtain the temporary permit and the said permit will be issued at the starting point of the said State at concerned RTO check post.
33. Further during the course of argument, the counsel for the petitioner has produced the copy of Temporary permit obtained by the owner of the alleged car. On perusal of the copy of said document (unmarked), it shows that, on 20-09-2014 the owner of the car has obtained the temporary permit from Tamilnadu transport department and the said permit was valid from 20-09-2014 to 26-09-2014.
24 MVC.No.4208/2014
SCCH-18
34. Further on perusal of Ex.P.2 i.e. MVI report, wherein the period of validity of permit is shown as not applicable. Considering the above facts, I am of the opinion that, if the owner of the car has not obtained the permit from the concerned transport authority of Tamilnadu, then while inspecting the vehicle, the concerned motor vehicle inspector would have definitely mentioned that, permit is not valid. But as stated above that, the Motor vehicle inspector has not mentioned regarding the same. On the other hand, as stated above that, on perusal of the copy of permit receipt produced by the petitioner, it shows that, on 20-09-2014, the owner of the alleged vehicle has obtained the temporary permit from Tamilnadu transport department. Considering the above facts and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the oral contention of the respondent No.2 is not acceptable one. Considering the above facts and for the above reason, I am of 25 MVC.No.4208/2014 SCCH-18 the opinion that, as on the date of accident, the alleged car was having Temporary permit to be plied within the jurisdiction of Tamilnadu State. Further as stated above that, the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car and as such, the respondent No1. & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. However, the respondent No.2 being the insurer is liable to pay compensation Rs.1,74,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Accordingly, I answer issue No.2 is in the partly affirmative.
35. ISSUE NO.3: In view of above discussion on issue Nos.1 & 2, I proceed to pass the following;
O R D E R The petition filed by the petitioner U/s 166 of MV act is partly allowed with cost.
26 MVC.No.4208/2014
SCCH-18 The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,74,000/- with interest @9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
The respondent No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. However, in view of the policy, the respondent No.2 insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount in this tribunal within a month from the date of this order.
After deposit of compensation amount, looking to the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner, the entire amount with accrued interest shall be released in the name of petitioner through account payee cheque on proper identification.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open court on this 2nd day of April 2016).
(VEERANNA SOMASEKHARA) III ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXIX ACMM, BANGALORE.
27 MVC.No.4208/2014
SCCH-18 ANNEXURES List of witnesses examined on petitioner's side:
P.W.1. Deepak.D. List of documents exhibited on petitioner's side:
Ex-P1 True copy of FIR with complaint Ex-P1 (a) Translation copy FIR with complaint Ex-P2 True copy of MVI report Ex-P3 Discharge summary Ex-P4 Medical bills Ex-P5 Prescriptions Ex-P6 Appointment letter
List of witnesses examined on respondents side:
RW.1: H.B.Guruprsad List of documents exhibited on respondents side:
Ex.R.1 Copy of Policy
Ex.R.2 Copy of Permit extract
III ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE
& XXIX ACMM.