Bangalore District Court
K.H.Divakargowda vs Vishwanath B.N on 11 February, 2022
BEFORE THE COURT OF XXIV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE
AND THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL & A.C.M.M.
(SCCH26) AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11th FEBRUARY 2022
PRESENT: SRI.R.MAHESHA. B.A.L.LLB.,
XXIV ADDL. SCJ &
ACMM & MEMBER MACT
BENGALURU.
M.V.C No.2547/2018
PETITIONER : K.H.Divakargowda
S/o Hanumanthaiah
a/a 56 years
R/o Korati village
Amruthur hobli,
Kunigal Taluk
Tumkur district.
(By Sri.G.P.S. Adv.,)
V/s
RESPONDENTS : 1. Vishwanath B.N
S/o Narasimhamurthy B.K
R/o Near Old Kaveri school
Shanthinagar
Tumkur.
(Exparte)
2. Shriram General Insurance co.,
Ltd., No.302, 3rd floor, PlotNo.48,
S & S corner building, Hospital
road, Shivaji nagar, Bangalore01
Policy No.10003/31/18/040185
valid from 10112017 to 164
2018
(By Sri.D.N.M.G.Advocate)
:: JUDGMENT::
The petition is filed by the Petitioner under Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 seeking compensation for an amount of Rs.50,00,000/ for the grievous injuries sustained by him, in road traffic accident.
2. The brief facts of the case of the Petitioner is as follows:
That on 27112017 at about 9.00 p.m. when the petitioner was driving his car bearing reg.No.KA04ME4228 from Kunigal towards Yediyur, slowly by following traffic rules at NH 48 road, near Kenkere village, Kasaba hobli, Kunigal Taluk, driver of the lorry bearing reg.No.KA076915 had negligently parked his punchered lorry in the middle of the road without any signals, indicators or any precautionary measures, without giving anyway for the vehicles proceedings in the said way and petitioner who was driving his car could not notice the parked lorry in the middle of the road and lorry's backside portion got hit to the front portion of the car, as a result of which petitioner sustained injuries and took treatment at hospital and spent money. That due to accidental injuries, the petitioner sustained disabilities and sustained loss of earnings. Hence prays to award compensation of Rs.50 lakhs from the respondents.
3. After service of summons, the respondent No.1RC owner of the lorry remained exparte and respondent No.2insurer of the offending vehicle has appeared through its counsel and filed its written statement.
4. Respondent No.2 in written statement stated that at the time of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle has not having driving licence and car has not having insurance as on the date of accident, as there is a negligence on the part of the petitioner. That the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable for non joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties as the insurer and insured of car bearing No.KA04ME 4228 is not made as parties in the above claim petition. That the vehicle bearing reg.No.KA076918 (lorry) vide policy No.10003/31/18/040185 was insured with this respondent for the period of 1742017 to 164 2018, but the liability if any is strictly subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, valid DL, permit and FC and also provisions of MV Act. That the owner of the vehicle has entrusted the vehicle knowingly to a person who did not having valid and effective DL, in view of the fact that the vehicle being driven by a non licence, hence there is a breach of contract and violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, permit and FC. That this respondent seeks protection u/s 147 and 149 of MV Act that as per section 134 (c) of MV Act 1988, it is mandatory duty of the insured therein to furnish the particulars of policy, date, time and place of alleged accident. Hence prays to dismiss the petition.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings, this tribunal has framed the following:
:: ISSUES::
1. Whether Petitioner proves that, he has sustained injuries on account of road traffic accident due to involvement of lorry bearing No.KA076915 near NH 48 road, near Kenkere villager, Kasaba hobli, Kunigal taluk on 2711 2017 at about 9.00 p.m. by rash and negligent as alleged in the petition ?
2. Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom ?
3. What order or award?
6. In order to prove the above said issues, Petitioner has been examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13 documents. One Dr.Ramesh B. got examined as PW2 and got marked ExP14 and 15. One Raghu Y.C. Medical record officer, Fortis hospital, Bangalore got examined as PW3 and got marked ExP16 and 17.
7. One Smt.Shobha K.A. got examined as RW1 and got marked Ex R1 to 3. One Puttegowda got examined as RW2 and got marked ExR4 to 12.
8. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the Petitioner and respondent No.2. Learned respondent No.2 filed written arguments and in support of his written arguments, he placed six decisions :
1. MFA 10656/2008 clubbed with MFA 6063/2008 (MV) United India Insurance co., Ltd., vs Smt.D.Shamala and others (DB) High court of karnataka DD 212014.
2. Civil Appeal No.10145/2016 Nishan Singh and others Vs Oriental insurance co., Ltd., Supreme Court of India DD 2742018 three judges bench.
3. 2017 ACJ 2360 Karnataka High Court, Kalburgi branch, division bench, DD.2012016.
4. 2015 ACJ 245 High Court of Karnataka single bench DD 1912 2013
5. 1994 ACJ 1303 High court of Orissa at Katak DD 1781993.
6. MFA 62/2018 clubbed with MFA 438/2018 (MV), the branch Manager, New India assurance co., Ltd., Vs Smt.Sruthi and others, DB High court of Karnataka DD412021.
9. My findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 : Partly in the Affirmative
Issue No.2 : Partly in the affirmative
Issue No.3 : As per final order for the
following:
REASONS
Issue No.1:
10. In order to prove the actionable negligence, the petitioner himself entered into the witness box and filed his affidavit in lieu of examinationinchief and got examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex P1 to 13. PW1 reiterates the averments and the allegations made in the claim petition and deposed that, the accident has occurred solely due to the negligently parked punctured lorry bearing No.KA076915 in the middle of the road without any signals, indicators or any precautionary measures, without giving any way for the vehicles proceeding in the said way at the time of accident by its driver.
11. It is the case of the petitioner that on 27112017 around 9.00 p.m. petitioner was driving his car bearing reg.No.KA04ME4228 from Kunigal side towards Yadiyur slowly by following all the traffic rules cautiously at NH 48 road near Kenkere village, Kasaba hobli, Kunigal Tq, at that point of time, lorry bearing No.KA076915 had negligently parked punctured lorry in the middle of the road without any signals, indicators or any precautionary measures, without giving any way for the vehicles proceeding in the said way at the time of accident by its driver. Petitioner was driving his car could not noticed the parked lorry which was parked in the middle of the road, hence the lorry's back side portion got hit to the front portion of petitioner car and petitioner got injuries due to this accident. Petitioner has been shifted to MM hospital, Kunigal and after first aid, petitioner was shifted to Sparsha hospital, Bangalore and taken treatment as inpatient from 28112017 to 1122017 and was conservatively treated and discharged with advice to take followup treatment periodically. Again petitioner admtited at Fortis hospital on 26122017 to 31122017 and underwent surgery to cervical spine injury and was discharged with advice to take followup treatment periodically. The main defence of the respondent No.2 is that he denied entire case of petitioner and specifically contended that there is a delay of two days in lodging complaint, the driver/petitioner has not having DL and his car has not having insurance as on the date of alleged accident. There is a negligence on the part of petitioner. The petitioner himself is caused the accident, therefore the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The involvement of the insured vehicle implicated by the petitioner in order to get unlawful compensation from insurance company and this respondent denied age of petitioner, income, avocation and expenditure alleged to be incurred by the petitioner.
12. In order to prove the case of petitioner, the petitioner placed reliance on police records and medical records. On perusal of the same, this complaint lodged by one Muralikrishna on 29112017 and case registered against offending lorry driver bearing No.KA076915 u/s 279, 337 of IPC. The informant stated in complaint/FIS that on 27112017 at about 9.00p.m. he proceeding from Bilidevalaya village to Kunigal through his motor cycle at Kenkere village, near Anjaneya swamy temple in NH 48 road one lorry driver parked his punctured lorry in the middle of road without indicator or any signals and without taking any precautions towards Yediyur. At that point of time, one car driver came from Kunigal side towards Yediyur, the said car hit to the back side of lorry and he sustained injuries. On enquiry in the spot it is came to know that the said car driver name was Divakar Gowda S/o Late.Hanumanthaiah, 55 years, Koradi village and said car bearing No. was KA04ME4228 and parked lorry bearing No. was KA076915 and he shifted injured to MM hospital, Kunigal and he got first aid and then shifted higher treatment to Sparsha hospital, Bangalore. He informed injured relatives about this accident. Later he came to know that none gave complaint to the police station. Therefore he lodged complaint on 29112017. Accordingly the SHO of Kunigal police station recorded FIR and proceed to conduct investigation. The investigation officer proceeded to spot and conduct spot panchanama on 30112017 and he clearly mentioned actual scenery of the accident and he seized two vehicles from the spot lorry bearing No.KA076915 and Toyoto innova car KA 04ME4228 and same have been forwarded to jurisdictional RTO office for conducting inspection of vehicle. The concerned IMV inspector, RTO, Tumkur inspected both vehicles on 1122017 at about 2.00p.m. and he noted down all damages found on both vehicles as per ExP5 and he opined that the said accident occurred due to any mechanical of both vehicles. After through investigation by IO he came to conclusion that due to the negligent parking of lorry in the middle road of the highway the present accident occurred and he submitted charge sheet against driver of the lorry bearing No.KA076915 alleged to be committed offence u/s 279, 337 of IPC and Section 122, 177 of IMV Act.
13. On perusal of police records, it indicates that admittedly the lorry bearing No.KA076915 was parked middle of the road due to tyre puncture. The respondent No.2 produced before this tribunal ExR5, it indicates that as on the date of accident, there was no valid policy for Toyoto innova car bearing No.KA04ME4228. On perusal of ExR5 it indicates that one Sriram General insurance company Ltd., issued package policy on 1102016 and it was valid from 1102016 to mid night 30092017. The present accident occurred on 27112017.So as per this document there was no insurance policy for the car KA04ME 4228 at the time of accident. The investigation officer did not include proper section in charge sheet against driver of car bearing No.KA04 ME4228. The respondent No.2 took defence in this case that as on the date of accident, the petitioner/driver of car bearing No.KA04ME4228 had no valid DL at the time of accident. The respondent No.2 himself produced through IO of this case, ExR7 it indicates that the petitioner/driver of car had DL of motor cycle with gear and agricultural tractor and trailor which were issued by Tumkur licencing authority on 6101994 and said DL valid till 342018. So as per ExR7, the petitioner had no DL to drove specific clause of vehicle at the time of accident. While filign charge sheet against offending vehicle IO has not noticed about the fact of petitioner had no specific clause of DL and insurance policy of car bearing No.KA04ME4228. The best reasons known to IO of this case. Considering the manner of accident is also important fact, the accident was occurred on 27112017, FIR was lodged on 29112017 after lapse of two days. There is accident occurred between two vehicles, as per sketch, panchanama and other police documents, it indicates that the petitioner was also contribute to said accident. The said lorry parked middle of the road due to tyre puncture at Kenkere village, it is duty bound to other travellers carefully look into the road and drove the vehicles. The accident occurred at about 9.00p.m. As per IMV report there is no mechanical defects the car had headlight, if petitioner took some extent of care, definitely there is no chance of occurring of accident between car and lorry. The petitioner/driver had DL of motor cycle and tractor with trailor, he had no DL for drove LMV vehicles on road. On perusal of manner of accident between two vehicles the petitioner/driver of the LMV vehicle was also rash and negligent manner driving without having specific clause of DL and without having insurance policy to his car drove the car in highway without taking any safety measure. Therefore the total negligence fixed by IO on the lorry driver KA07 6915 is not sustainable under law. It is just and proper to fix contributory negligence in the ratio of 50:50 on the part of driver of car bearing No.KA04ME4228 and also on the part of the driver of lorry bearing No.KA076915. For the above reason, I am of the opinion that if the extent of negligence on the part of the petitioner/driver is fixed at 50% and the extent of negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry is fixed at 50% certainly it would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, I answer this issue No.1 partly in affirmative.
14. Issue No.2: The petitioner states that he was aged about 56 years as on the date of accident, due to the accident, he has sustained C4, C5, C5C6, C6C7 PIVD with Cord compression and myelomalacic changes diabetes mellitus. After this accident, immediately he admitted to MM hospital, Kunigal and after first aid, petitioner was shifted to Sparsha hospital, Bangalore and taken treatment as inpatient from 28112017 to 112 2017 and was conservatively treated and discharged with advice to take followup treatment periodically. Again petitioner admitted at Fortis hospital on 26122017 to 31122017 and underwent surgery to cervical spine injury and was discharged with advice to take followup treatment periodically. On perusal of ExP9 DL of petitioner/driver of car his date of birth mentioned as 5121962, the alleged accident occurred on 27112017, as per ExP7, his age was 56 years. The petitioner himself admitted during cross examination in page 2 para 3 in first line he was aged about 56 years at the time of accident. The petitioner contended in the petition that before sustaining of injuries from this accident, petitioner have been maintained good health and doing business and earning more than Rs.50,000/p.m. and leading his life happily by maintaining his family members. Now due to the cervical spine injury, the petitioner is not able to do his daily work, hence his income is completely seized. The petitioner did not produced any document before this tribunal to show he had monthly income of Rs.50,000/p.m. and he is working as a private contractor. So in the absence of material document regarding his avocation and income, it would proper to workout notional income. The present accident occurred in the year 2017. As per the recent decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case between MFA 4893/2016(MV) Smt.Yashodamma Vs M.D., BMTC disposed on 16102020 (DB) held that in case no document produced by the petitioners to prove their avocation and income, in such a situation, court can refer or rely the guidelines issued by Karnataka State Legal Service Authority to assess notional income of injured. Hence, as per the chart prepared by Karnataka State Legal Service Authority, dt.13082020, the notional income of the injured is taken as Rs.11,000/. Therefore Notional Income of Rs.11,000/ p.m. and age of the injured taken as 56 at the time of accident and appropriate multiplier 56 to 60 is 9 has to be considered for calculating the compensation.
15. In order to prove the disability the petitioner examined one Dr.Ramesh B.Orthopaedic surgeon, Victoria hospital, Bangalore. He deposed in his chief examination that on verification of petitioner records, he found injuries i.e., cervical injury underwent C4,C5, C6, C7 disecomy and fusion and he recently examined petitioner on 23102018 and assessed disability on guidelines issued by central government of India. The petitioner complained of pain in neck, difficulty to rotate the neck, difficulty to do routine activities and further he found paraspinal muscle spam present. On clinical and radiological examination, he assessed permanent physical disability for wholebody was 10% and he produced two documents which were marked as ExP14 and 15. He has been subjected detailed cross examination by respondent No.2. During course of cross examination, he clearly admitted that he was not a treated doctor to the petitioner. The petitioner came to him for assessing physical disability, the petitioner treated by Fortis hospital and Sparsha hospital. This doctor assessed physical disability on the basis of discharge summary and other medical documents. Further PW2 clearly admitted he was not assessed the functional disability and he did not know about what is the occupation of petitioner and he denied the suggestion of respondent No.2, neck rotation problem does not comes under 10% disability for wholebody. The petitioner did not examined treated doctor, the PW2 assessed 10% physical disability for wholebody, the petitioner had complains neck pain and rotation problem. So considering the nature of complaint and tretment taken in Fortis hospital and Sparsha hospital, it would just and proper to consider at 5%. The loss of future earnings due to permanent disability is calculated as Rs.11,000/ x 12 x 9 x 5%= Rs.59,400/.
16. Pain and sufferings : So far as the compensation under non pecuniary damages, considering the fact that the petitioner has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 5% due to the accident which cause to his immeasurable mental agony and pain, I am opinion that an amount of Rs.10,000/ would be just and fair compensation under the head of pain and sufferings.
17. Loss of Amenities of Life : For loss of amenities of life, undoubtedly he has to lead his life ahead and he is sure to suffer on his day today activities. Hence petitioner is awarded Rs.10,000/ under loss of amenities of life.
18. Medical Expenses: Under the pecuniary damages, expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation and medicines ExP13 medical bills of Rs.4,20,281/ and prescriptions at ExP12 (12 in numbers) produced by the petitioner. On perusal of it shows that the petitioner was After this accident, immediately he admitted to MM hospital, Kunigal and after first aid, petitioner was shifted to Sparsha hospital, Bangalore and taken treatment as inpatient from 28112017 to 1122017 and was conservatively treated and discharged with advice to take followup treatment periodically. Again petitioner admitted at Fortis hospital on 26122017 to 31122017 and underwent surgery to cervical spine injury and was discharged with advice to take followup treatment periodically. On meticulous perusal of ExP12 and 13, it indicates that the petitioner had previous/past history of diabetes, mellitus and petitioner was advised for surgery at appropriate stage, but he deferred the advice of the doctors. Therefore he complained of tingling and numbness in both limbs, on and off since then. Therefore he again admitted into Fortis hospital on 26122017 and total calculation of medical bills, it is forthcoming that the bill produced in serial number 21 which is issued by Sri.Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwara Yoga and nature cure hospital, Shanthivana, Dharmastala, Belthangadi Tq., D.K.district was not supported by any doctor advice. Moreover he taken treatment for his previous history of diabetic. This treatment not taken due to present accidental injuries. Therefore this tribunal not to inclined grant Sl.No.21 amount in favour of petitioner. Petitioner incurred expense from the date of accident, till he discharged from Fortis hospital, he remitted total tune of Rs.4,13,101/. Therefore he is entitle to get abvoe amount instead of Rs.4,20,281/. Therefore petitioner is entitle reimbursement of medical bills under this head. This tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.4,13,101/ under the medical expense.
19. Food and nourishment, Conveyance and Attendant charges: The petitioner i.e., PW1 stated in his evidence affidavit and in petition that after the accident, he immediately admitted to MM hospital, Kunigal and after first aid, petitioner was shifted to Sparsha hospital, Bangalore and taken treatment as inpatient from 28112017 to 112 2017 and was conservatively treated and discharged with advice to take followup treatment periodically. Again petitioner admitted at Fortis hospital on 26122017 to 31122017 and underwent surgery to cervical spine injury and was discharged with advice to take followup treatment periodically. He took treatment as inpatient for total period of 9 days in the said hospitals. Therefore it is just and reasonable to award compensation of Rs.15,000/ under the head of Food and nourishment, Conveyance and Attendant charges.
20. Loss of income during the period of treatment: With regard to loss of earnings during treatment, considering 9 days admitted in the hospital as inpatient and around 60 days for rest is considered and loss of earning during treatment calculated for 60 days, notional monthly income of the petitioner is already considered as Rs.11,000/p.m. and hence loss of earning during treatment would be Rs.22,000/ under the head Loss of income during the period of treatment.
21. In view of the above reasoning, petitioner is entitled for the compensation under the following Heads:
SL.N HEAD COMPENSATION
O. AWARDED
1 Loss of future earnings Rs. 59,400/
due to permanent
disability
2. Pain and sufferings Rs. 10,000/
3. Loss of amenities of life Rs. 10,000/
4. Medical expenses Rs.4,13,101/
5 Food, nourishment, Rs. 15,000/
conveyance and attender
charges
6 Loss of income during the Rs. 22,000/
period of treatment
TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.5,29,501/
AWARDED
From the said total sum of Rs.5,29,501/ is rounded off to Rs.5,29,500/. Out of which petitioner is entitle to get 50% of the compensation amount i.e., Rs.5,29,500 - 50%=Rs.2,64,750/. The said amount of Rs.2,64,750/ is rounded off to Rs.2,64,800/. Hence the petitioner is entitle to get compensation of Rs.2,64,800/.
22. As far as awarding of interest on the compensation amount is concerned, in a recent decision reported in 2018 ACJ 1300 between Mangla Ram V/s. Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., and others (in CA Nos.2499 of 2018 arising out of SLP(C) Nos.2814142 of 2017 decided on 06.04.2018) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the compensation amount, in para No.28 of the judgment held that, 'The appellant would also be entitled to interest on the total amount of compensation at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the compensation from the date of filing of the claim petition till date of realization" and also by following the principles laid down in (2018) ACJ 1020 in between ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co., Ltd., V/s. Ajay Kumar Mohanty and another decided on 6.3.2018 (in CA Nos.7181 of 2015 and 1879 of 2016) at para No.1 and 12 Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: "Quantum InterestTribunal allowed interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent which was reduced by High Court to 7 per centApex Court allowed interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim application". In view of the above judgments with regard to the rate of interest and also it is settled principles of law that, while awarding interest on the compensation amount, the Court has to take into account the rate of interest on the Nationalized Bank and the rate of interest at the rate of 9% p.a. cannot said to be on the higher side. Accordingly, the Petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of 9% p.a.
23. The main defence of respondent No.2 that he denied entire case of petitioner and specifically contended that there is a delay of two days in lodging complaint, the driver/petitioner has not having DL and his car has not having insurance as on the date of alleged accident. There is a negligence on the part of petitioner. The petitioner himself is caused the accident, therefore the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. In order to prove or substantiate his defence, the respondent No.2 examined its legal officer Smt.Shobha K.A. as RW1, she again reiterated entire written statement averments in her chief affidavit and produced ExR1 to 3. Except bear suggestions to RW1, nothing has been elicited in favour of petitioner. Further the respondent No.2 called investigation officer of this case one Puttegowda examined as RW2, he deposed by supporting charge sheet filed by him and he produced ExR4 to R12. During course of chief examination by respondent No.2, he clearly admitted that ನಶನ ಆರ 7 ಅಪಫತವದ ಸಸದರರ ದಲ ವದದ ದ ಕಕವಗ ಚಲಕಯಲ ಇರಲಲಲ. ನನದ ಆರರರಪ ಪಟಟ ಸಲಸದವಗ ಕಎ 04ಎಸ ಇ4228 ನ ಚಲಕ ಡಎಲ ಹರಸದಲಲ ಎಸದದ ನನನ ಆರರರಪ ಪಟಟಯಲ ನಮರದಸಲಲ . ದವಕರ ಗಡ ಕರನದ ನ ಲರಯ ಹಸಬಗಕಕ ಹರಡದದಕರಸಡದರ ಎಸದರ ಸಕ ನಸತದದ ಲರಗ ಹಸದನಸದ ಹರಡದದರ ಎಸದದ ಹರಳದತಕರ.
24. This witness treated as hostile and permitted to conduct cross examination to respondent No.2. During course of cross examination by respondent No.2, RW2 contended due to the negligent of lorry driver KA076915 the present accident occurred and there is no fault from petitioner/driver of car bearing No.KA04ME4228 Further during course of cross examination by petitioner, this witness deposed that due to lorry bearing No.KA076915 had negligently parked his punctured lorry in the middle of the said road without giving any signal, indicators or any precautionary measures, without giving any way of the vehicles, proceeding in the said way and therefore petitioner/driver of car KA04 ME4288 without noticed hit back side portion of the lorry.
25. The oral evidence of RW.1 and 2 and documents available on record goes to show that, the driver of the car bearing No.KA04ME 4288 was not possessing valid and effective DL to drive the car and the said car had no insurance as on the date of the accident. Thus, the petitioner has breached the terms and conditions of the policy. So this tribunal already came to conclusion that while discussing issue No.1, contributory negligence of petitioner fixed at the rate of 50%. Now it is pertinent to discuss that the driver of lorry bearing No.KA076915 had valid and effective Dl at the time of accident and policy issued by respondent No.2 was subsists at the time of accident is important to fix liability on respondents. There is no dispute from either side regarding the policy issued by respondent No.2 valid from 10112017 to 164 2018 and IO while filing charge sheet against driver of offending lorry, he was not noticed about not possessing valid and effective DL at the time of accident by the driver of offending lorry. RW2 himself produced DL of driver of offending lorry bearing No.KA076915 by name Puttaraju H.G. S/o Gangadharaiah which is marked before this tribunal as ExR12. The said offending lorry driver had DL, LMV GV from 1261990 transport from 28101992, PSV bus from 122000, the said DL valid till 25122018 (TR) and badge No.12637 bus. So from exR12 it is proved before this tribunal that at the time of accidnet the offending driver had valid and effective DL. The respondent No.2 cannot escape from tis liability on the ground of the petitioner/driver had no valid and effective DL at the time of accident. The respodnent No.1 being RC owner and policy holder of lorry bearing No.KA076915 and respondent NO.2 being insurer of said lorry bearing No.KA076915.
26. Coming to the question of fixing the liability to pay the compensation to the petitioner, it is held supra by this Tribunal that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. Respondent No.1 is the RC owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of lorry. Hence, Respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner/driver. Accordingly, issue No.2 is answered partly in the Affirmative
27. Issue No.3: On the basis of discussions made on Issue Nos.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:
::ORDER::
The petition filed under Sec.166 of the M.V. Act, 1989 is partly allowed with cost.
Petitioner is entitled for 50% of compensation of Rs.5,29,501/ (5,29,500/ 50% =2,64,750/ (rounded off to Rs.2,64,800/) (Rupees Two lakhs sixty four thousand eight hundred Only) from the date of petition till realization at 9% p.a..
The respondent No.2 is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner and it is directed to deposit the above compensation amount in this tribunal within two months from the date of this order.
On deposit of compensation amount, 50% amount to be released in favour of petitioner through Epayment directly to the petitioner's Account by obtaining the bank account details and remaining 50% of compensation amount shall be kept in FD in any nationalised bank of petitioner's choice for a period of three years .
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/. Draw Award Accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, through online computer, thereof is corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 11th February 2022) (R.MAHESHA.) XXIV ADDL. SCJ & ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU.
::A N N E X U R E::
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE
PETITIONER:
PW1 : K.H.Divakargowda
PW2 : Dr.Ramesh B.
PW3 : Raghu Y.C.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE
PETITIONER:
Ex.P.1 : FIR
Ex.P.2 : Complaint
Ex.P.3 & 4 : Spot mahazar and seizure mahazar
Ex.P.5 : IMV report
Ex.P.6 : Wound certificate
Ex.P.7 : Charge sheet
Ex.P.8 : True copy of package parcel
Ex.P.9 : DL
Ex.P.10 and : Discharge summary
11
Ex.P.12 : Medical prescriptions (12)
Ex.P.13 : Medical bills (27 bills)
Ex.P.14 : OPD card
Ex.P.15 : Xray film
Ex.P.16 : Authorisation letter
Ex.P.17 : Case sheet
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE
RESPONDENTS:
RW1 : Shobha K.A.
RW2 : Puttegowda
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE
RESPONDENTS:
Ex.R1 : Copy of the policy
Ex.R2 and 3 : Statement of owner and driver of the
offending lorry
Ex.R4 : B Extract
Ex.R5 : Policy copy
Ex.R6 : Registration certificate
Ex.R7 : DL
Ex.R8 : RC
Ex.R9 : Challan
Ex.R10 : Goods carriage permitted
Ex.R11 : Pollution certificate
Ex.R12 : DL
(R.MAHESHA.)
XXIV ADDL. SCJ & ACMM,
MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU.