Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5) The respondent No.2 has filed written statement and denied the contents of claim petition. It is contended that, petitioner is not working in Bangalore and this claim SCCH - 11 5 MVC No.705/2014 petition will not come jurisdiction of this court and liable to be dismissed in view of decision of Hon'ble High Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd V/s Kannappa in M.F.A.No.1458/2007 and ILR 2013 KAR 102. It is admitted that, respondent No2 has issued insurance policy bearing No.OG141701180200043644 in favour of respondent No.1 in respect of motor cycle bearing No.KA- 03-HF-5251, but liability of the respondent No.2 is subject to terms and conditions of insurance policy. As per section 134(c) of Motor Vehicles Act, the respondent No.1 is duty bound to furnish particulars of policy, date, time and place of the accident, particulars of injured, name of driver and driving licence particulars, but the respondent No.1 has not furnished said information and he has not complied the statutory demand. As per section 158(6) of Motor Vehicles Act, it is mandatory duty on the part of jurisdictional police to forward all relevant documents to the insurer within 30 days from the date of information, but jurisdictional police have not furnished relevant documents to the respondent No2 and have not complied statutory requirements. As on the date of accident, rider of SCCH - 11 6 MVC No.705/2014 offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence and jurisdictional police have registered the case and after investigation, they have filed charge sheet against the rider of offending vehicle for the offences punishable under section 279, 338 of IPC and section 3 (1) R/W.S.181 of Motor Vehicles Act for not having driving licence and the respondent No.1 has violated terms and conditions of insurance policy. Hence, the respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation and only respondent No.1 is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. If the respondent No.1 fails to contest the claim petition or colludes with petitioner, the respondent No.2 may be permitted to take all defences available to the insured under section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act. In the event of any award is passed against the respondent No.2, rate of interest may be restricted to 6% per annum as per decision of Hon'ble High Court and no interest shall be payable for future medical expenses and future loss of income and interest is to be paid over the amount which has become payable on the date of award as per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in R.D.Hattangadi V/s Pest SCCH - 11 7 MVC No.705/2014 Control India Pvt.Ltd AIR 1995 SC 755. The compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive, exorbitant and has no rationale. Therefore, it is prayed for dismissal of claim petition with costs.

14) The petitioner has produced true copy of order sheet in CC No.235/2014 and as per the said document, criminal case has been registered against the rider of the motor cycle for the offences punishable under section 279, 338 of IPC and section 3(1) R/W.Section 181 of Motor Vehicle Act and he appeared before the court and admitted his guilt and paid fine amount. She has also produced true copy of charge sheet which is marked at Ex.P.2 and as per the said document, police have filed charge sheet against the rider of the offending vehicle. On perusal of the police document like charge sheet, they reveal that, police SCCH - 11 13 MVC No.705/2014 have filed charge sheet against the rider of the offending vehicle for the offences punishable under section 279, 338 of IPC and section 3(1) R/W. Section 181 of Motor Vehicle Act. The accident has taken place, when petitioner was crossing the road from west to east direction and rider of motor cycle came from Byatarayanapalya and dashed to the petitioner and caused grievous injuries and this fact is clear from the oral evidence of PW.1 and charge sheet. So, I hold that, petitioner has proved the rash and negligent driving by the rider of motor cycle. So, I answer issue No.1 in affirmative.

15) ISSUE No.2: The respondent No.2 has taken contention that, as on the date of accident, the rider of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence. The respondent No.2 has adduced the evidence of RW.1 who is police inspector who has stated in his evidence that, he has conducted the investigation in crime No.149/2013 and after completion of investigation, he has filed charge sheet against the rider of the vehicle bearing No.KA-03-HF-5251 for rash and negligent driving and not SCCH - 11 14 MVC No.705/2014 having driving licence under Section 279, 338 of I.P.C and Section 3(1) R/W.Section 181 of Motor Vehicle Act. The respondent insurance company has also examined RW.2, Smt.Prathiba who has also stated that, the rider of offending vehicle was not holding driving licence to ride the motor cycle and Yelahanka traffic police have investigated the matter and filed charge sheet against the rider of the motor cycle for offences punishable under Section 279, 338 of I.P.C and Section 3(1) R/W.Section 181 of Motor Vehicle Act. The respondent insurance company has examined RW.4 who is FDA in RTO office, Yeshwanthpura and as per his evidence, he is unable to produce driving licence only on the basis of the name particulars of driver without his date of birth and it requires driving licence number and date of birth to furnish the driving licence extract before this court and without driving licence number and date of birth, the driving licence particulars cannot be furnished.

17) On perusal of the charge sheet it is clear that, police have filed charge sheet against the driver of offending vehicle for the offences punishable under section 279, 338 of IPC and section 3 (1) R/W.S.181 of Motor Vehicles Act. The respondent insurance company has examined RW.1 who has stated that, he has investigated in crime No.149/2013 and after investigation, he has filed charge sheet against the rider for the offences punishable under section 279, 338 of I.P.C. In the cross-examination of RW.1, he has admitted that, in case of road traffic accident, he will verify driving licence, registration certificate and insurance policy. He has admitted that, the vehicle owner has provided those documents for inspection and registration certificate is in the name of respondent SCCH - 11 22 MVC No.705/2014 No.1 and the insurance policy is in the name of Hemanth Kumar. He has stated that, he has not given notice to the driver to produce his driving licence and owner of said vehicle told him that, the driver is not holding driving licence and he enquired to the driver and owner of the vehicle who told that, the driver was not holding driving licence and he has filed charge sheet against the driver of the vehicle. Though, the learned counsel for petitioner has contended that, the investigating officer has not issued notice to the driver of the vehicle and on the basis of the reply given by the owner of vehicle, he has filed charge sheet for the offences punishable under section 279, 338 of IPC and section 3 (1) R/W.S.181 of Motor Vehicles Act, said contention is not acceptable. Because, he has stated in his cross-examination that, he enquired the driver and owner who told that, the driver was not hold driving licence and he filed charge sheet against the driver of the vehicle. In case the driver was holding valid and effective driving licence, he would have produced the same before investigating Officer at the time of investigation and even he would have appeared before this court and contested SCCH - 11 23 MVC No.705/2014 the matter and would have produced the driving licence to prove the fact that, he was holding valid and effective driving licence. But, he has admitted the guilt and paid fine amount in criminal court which goes to show that, he was not holding driving licence and this fact is admitted by RW.1 in the cross-examination by learned counsel for petitioner. So, I answer issue No.2 in the affirmative.