Bangalore District Court
Reddappa J. Alias Reddappa vs Pramoda M.R on 17 December, 2024
KABC020129102021
IN THE COURT OF THE XI ADDL. SMALL CAUSES AND
ADDL. MACT., BANGALORE, (SCCH-12)
Present: Smt.Vidyalaxmi Bhat
B.A, LL.B.,(Hon's)LL.M.
XI Addl. Small Causes Judge & ACJM,
Court of Small Causes,
Member, MACT-12, Bengaluru.
Dated this the 17th day of December, 2024
MVC. No.2004/2021 C/W 2005/2021
Petitioner : Sri.Reddappa.J @ Reddappa
MVC.No.2004/2021 S/o Jayappa
Aged 28 years
Residing at 346/2, Jaya Prakash
Narayana Colony, Behind Escort,
Yelahanka Old Town
Bangalore North
Bangalore-560064.
Petitioner : Sri.Krishnappa.K @ Krishnappa
MVC. No.2005/2021 S/o Venkatappa
Aged about 48 years
R/at 351, Jaya Prakash Narayana
Colony, Yelahanka, Bangalore North,
Bangalore-560064.
(By Sri.Amaresha.N, Advocate)
V/s
Respondent/s: 1.Pramoda M.R
S/o Ramachandrappa
(SCCH-12) 2 MVC. No. 2004 C/W 2005/2021
R/at .07, Teachers Colony,
Parvathi Nagar, Medahalli,
Kithaganur Main Road, K.R.Puram,
Bangalore-560036.
(RC Owner of Royal Enfield Bike bearing
reg.No.KA-53-ES-8253)
2. IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance
Co.Ltd
Sri Shanthi Towers, 141, 5th Floor,
3rd Main, East to NGEF Layout,
Kasturinagar, Bangalore-43
(Policy No.1-1FG9M162
Valid from 15.06.20 to 14.06.21)
(R-1 Ex-parte)
(R-2 By Sri.S.Maheswara, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This is the common judgment passed in M.V.C.
No.2004/2021 and M.V.C.No.2005/2021. Both petitions are
arising out of same accident, hence they are clubbed and
common judgment is passed in both cases. Both petitions are
filed by the petitioners under Section 166 of M.V. Act claiming
compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- and Rs.40,00,000/-
respectively for the injuries sustained by them in the road traffic
accident with cost and interest from the date of petition till
realization.
2. The brief facts of the petition in MVC No.2004/2021 is
that, on 16.02.2021 at about 7.00 pm petitioner was riding
Motor Cycle bearing reg.No.KA-50-Y-5302 along with one pillion
rider by name Krishnappa on Mulbagal-Tayaluru road, slowly
and cautiously by observing traffic rules on left side of the road,
(SCCH-12) 3 MVC. No. 2004 C/W 2005/2021
at that time, rider of one Royal Enfield bike bearing reg.No.KA-
53-ES-8253 came from Tayaluru towards Mulbagal in rash and
negligent manner with high speed and dashed to petitioner,
due to which petitioner and pillion rider fell down and sustained
fracture of open traumatic dislocation of right 2 nd toe pip joint
and other injury to all over the body. Immediately he was
shifted to V.Kotte Govt hospital, after taking first aid treatment
he was shifted to PES hospital, Kuppam and took treatment as
inpatient from 17.02.2021 to 24.02.2021. He underwent
surgery and took follow up treatment as per the advise of the
doctors. He has spent Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical expenses,
conveyances, food, nourishment and other incidental charges.
3. It is further stated in the petition that petitioner was hale
and healthy before the accident and he was working as BBMP
Lorry Driver and earning Rs.18,000/- per month. Due to the
accident he is not in a position to walk, stand, move without
help and he could not attend to his duty due to which he has
lost income. Petitioner suffered a lot mentally, physically and
financially. The accident has occurred due to rash and negligent
riding of the rider of motor cycle bearing reg.No.KA-53-ES-
8253. The Mulbagal Rural police have registered case in Crime
No.31/2021 for the offences P/u/s 279, 337 of IPC against the
rider of said motor cycle. The 1st respondent being R.C. owner
and 2nd respondent being insurer of said motor cycle are jointly
and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. On all
these grounds he prayed to allow the petition and award
(SCCH-12) 4 MVC. No. 2004 C/W 2005/2021
compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- with cost and interest in the
above case.
4. The brief facts of the petition in MVC No.2005/2021 is
that, on 16.02.2021 at about 7.00 pm petitioner was pillion
rider and was proceeding in Motor Cycle bearing reg.No.KA-50-
Y-5302 with rider Reddappa on Mulbagal-Tayaluru road, slowly,
cautiously by observing all traffic rules on left side of the road,
at that time, rider of motor cycle bearing reg.No.KA-53-ES-8253
came from Tayaluru towards Mulbagal in rash and negligent
manner with high speed and dashed to the motor cycle in which
petitioner was pillion rider. Due to the said impact petitioner fell
down and sustained fracture of right hand 4 th finger proximal
phalynx fracture of right foot 2nd and 5th proximal hallux
fracture and other injury to all over the body. Immediately he
was shifted to V.Kotte Govt hospital after taking first aid
treatment he was shifted to PES hospital, Kuppam and took
treatment as inpatient from 17.02.2021 to 24.02.2021. He
underwent surgery and took follow up treatment as per the
advise of the doctors. He has spent Rs.3,00,000/- towards
medical expenses, conveyances, food, nourishment and other
incidental charges.
5. It is further stated in the petition that petitioner was hale
and healthy before the accident and he was working as BBMP
Lorry Driver and earning Rs.18,000/- per month. Due to the
accident he is not in a position to walk, stand, move without
help and he could not attend to his duty due to which he has
lost income. Petitioner suffered a lot mentally, physically and
(SCCH-12) 5 MVC. No. 2004 C/W 2005/2021
financially. The accident has occurred due to rash and negligent
riding of the rider of Royal Enfield bike bearing reg.No.KA-53-
ES-8253. The Mulbagal Rural police have registered case in
Crime No.31/2021 for the offences P/u/s 279, 337 of IPC
against the rider of said motor cycle. The 1st respondent being
R.C. owner and 2nd respondent being insurer of motor cycle are
jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the
petitioner. On all these grounds he prayed to allow the petition
and award compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- with cost and
interest in the above case.
6. On issuance of notice, respondent no.1 was served by way
of substituted service through paper publication and he has not
appeared on the date of hearing and hence he is placed ex-
parte. 2nd respondent insurance company is served and
appeared through its counsel and filed written statement
contending that petition is not maintainable either in law or on
facts. It admits the issuance of insurance policy in respect of
Royal Enfield bike bearing reg.No.KA-53-ES-8253 and liability
to indemnify the 1st respondent is subject to terms and
conditions fo the policy, provisions of MV Act, valid and effective
driving license, R.C and subject to confirmation of Section 64
VB of Insurance Act. It seeks protection under Section 147 and
149(2) of M.V.Act. It disputed the compliance of Sec.134(c) and
158(c) of IMV Act. Right reserved to contest the matter
U/Sec.170 of M.V.Act. It denies the involvement of motor cycle
bearing bearing reg.No.KA-53-ES-8253 in the alleged accident.
That the alleged accident took place on 16.02.2021 however the
(SCCH-12) 6 MVC. No. 2004 C/W 2005/2021
complaint was lodged after lapse of 02 days from the date of
alleged accident. That motor cycle bearing bearing reg.No.KA-
53-ES-8253 was falsely implicated by the petitioner colluding
with the owner of the vehicle, hospital authorities and police to
get compensation by this respondent. No valid reasons assigned
for the delay in lodging the complaint therefore claim petition
may be dismissed. That as per the FIR and complaint the name
of the rider was not mentioned, however charge sheet is filed
against one Sathish as rider of motor cycle as on the date of
accident. That this respondent has appointed an investigator to
investigate the matter. At the time of inspection he came to
know that one Anand was the rider of motor cycle, who was an
actual rider as on the date of accident. He was not having valid
and effective DL as on the date of accident, for that reason one
Satish has been falsely implicated by the petitioner colluding
with the police and owner of the vehicle in order to get
compensation from this respondent. That petitioner was not
wearing helmet as on the date of accident and has violated
Section 129 of M.V.Act. This petition is liable to be dismissed for
non-joinder of necessary parties i.e, rider of motor cycle, infact
rider of insured vehicle is necessary party for the adjudication of
the above claim. That petition is bad for non-joinder of
necessary party such as owner and insurer of the TP vehicle
need to be added as party to the proceeding. That rider of
motor cycle bearing bearing reg.No.KA-53-ES-8253 was not
holding valid and effective driving license as on the date of
accident and further was not qualified for holding or obtaining
such driving license and not satisfied the requirement of Rule 3
(SCCH-12) 7 MVC. No. 2004 C/W 2005/2021
of Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989. The respondent no.1
knowingly fully well that the rider did not possess valid and
effective driving license to ride the vehicle and willfully
entrusted his vehicle to the said rider, thereby owner of the
vehicle committed breach of terms and conditions of the policy.
Medical treatment and expenses alleged are denied. Age,
occupation and income of the petitioner are denied. That in case
of compensation granted, interest cannot exceed Rs.6% p.a. On
all these grounds he prayed to dismiss the petition.
7. On the basis of above pleadings, my learned predecessors-
in-office has framed following:-
ISSUES IN MVC NO. 2004/2021
1. Whether the petitioner proves that the
injuries shown in petition are sustained by
him in a motor vehicle accident occurred
on 16.02.2021 due to rash and negligent
riding of rider of Royal Enfield bike bearing
No.KA-53-ES-8253 which hit Motor cycle
bearing No.KA-50-Y-5302?
2. Whether the petitioner prove his age,
occupation, income and permanent
disability if any?
3. Whether respondent no.2/Insurance
company proves that the accident occurred
due to negligence of petitioner?
4. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so by whom and what
is the quantum?
5. What Order or Award?
(SCCH-12) 8 MVC. No. 2004 C/W 2005/2021
ISSUES IN MVC NO. 2005/2021
1. Whether the petitioner proves that the
injuries shown in petition are sustained by
him in a motor vehicle accident occurred
on 16.02.2021 due to rash and negligent
riding of rider of Royal Enfield bike bearing
No.KA-53-ES-8253 which hit Motor cycle
bearing No.KA-50-Y-5302?
2. Whether the petitioner prove his age,
occupation, income and permanent
disability if any?
3. Whether respondent no.2/Insurance
company proves that the accident occurred
due to negligence of petitioner?
4. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so by whom and what is
the quantum?
5. What Order or Award?
8. Since both cases are arising out of the same accident, they
were clubbed and common evidence is recorded in MVC No.
2004/2021. To prove his case, petitioner in MVC No.2004/2021
entered witness box and got examined as P.W.1. Through him
Ex.P.1 to P.7 and Ex.P.10 to 12 documents are marked. Further
petitioner in MVC.No.2005/2021 got examined himself as
P.W.2. Through him Ex.P.8 and 9 and Ex.P.13 to Ex.P.15
documents are marked. M.R.O of PES hospital, Kummpan by
name Dr. Vinoth examined as P.W.3 in both cases. Through
him Ex.P.16 to 20 documents are marked. One Dr.Nagaraj B. N-
orthopaedic surgeon at Sai Ortho and Dental Center is
examined as P.W.4 and P.W.5 in M.V.C. No.2004/2021 and
MVC No.2005/2021 respectively. Through him Ex.P.21 to 24
(SCCH-12) 9 MVC. No. 2004 C/W 2005/2021
documents are marked. One Satish who is accused alleged rider
of motor cycle bearing No.KA-53-ES-8253 as per charge sheet is
examined as P.W.6. Through him Ex.P.25 and 26 documents
are marked. S.Rajareddy who is alleged eye witness to the
incident is examined as P.W.7 through him Ex.P.27 document
is marked.
9. On the contrary the Manager of insurance company is
examined as R.W.1. Through him Ex.R.1 and R.2 documents
are marked. One Shrikar.D.Kulkarni- Forensic Associate is
examined as R.W.2. No document is marked on his behalf and
respondent side evidence is closed.
10. Heard learned counsel for both sides and perused records.
Counsel for petitioner relied upon following judgments;
1. Kumari Fazeelath V/s Mr. Zubair Ahmed and another,
MFA No.8490/2010(MV) dt. 20.02.2018, The Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru
2. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd V/s Mohammed Hussain and
Another, 2009 ACJ 2468
3. Vinodbhai and others V/s KSRTC and another, 1979 ACJ
282,
11. On taking into consideration the oral and documentary
evidence placed before this Tribunal and arguments of both
sides, I answer the above issues in all the cases as follows: –
IN MVC NO.2004/2021
Issue No.1: In the Negative
Issue No.2: In the Negative
Issue No.3: In the Negative
Issue No.4: In the Negative
(SCCH-12) 10 MVC. No. 2004 C/W 2005/2021Issue No.5: As per final order
for the following;
IN MVC NO.2005/2021
Issue No.1: In the Negative
Issue No.2: In the Negative
Issue No.3: In the Negative
Issue No.4: In the Negative
Issue No.5: As per final order
[
for the following;
REASONS
12. ISSUE NO.1 IN BOTH CASES: In both the cases burden
is on the petitioners to prove that the rider of motor cycle
bearing No.KA-53-ES-8253 has caused accident by rash and
negligent riding of the said vehicle. They have to prove that
injuries sustained by them are due to the said rash and
negligent act of the rider and due to the accident dated
16.02.2021.To prove their case petitioner in MVC
No.2004/2021 got examined as P.W.1 and petitioner in MVC
No.2005/2021 is examined as P.W.2. In their chief examination
they reiterated the petition averments. They have produced copy
of FIR at Ex.P.1. It shows one Nagaraja is first informant, he
has mentioned in the first information that his father-in-law
Krishnappa and his brother Reddappa and himself are residing
at Yelahanka Bengaluru. That all of them are working as BBMP
lorry drivers. That there was village panchayat election on
17.02.2021 and to cast vote all of them were going to their
native village Somapura in their separate vehicles. That on
(SCCH-12) 11 MVC. No. 2004 C/W 2005/202116.02.2021 while going so, Krishnappa and Reddappa were
going on Honda Activa two wheeler bearing No.KA-50Y-5302 in
which Reddappa was riding and Krishnappa was pillion rider.
Further, this first informant was going in his own vehicle
behind the aforesaid two wheeler. That at 7.00 pm when they
reached near Tayalur, Mulabagal road, rider of one motor cycle
bearing No.KA-53-ES-8253 came in rash and negligent manner
and dashed to the front side of two wheeler in which Reddappa
and Krishnappa were traveling. Then this first informant
stopped his vehicle and went to the spot of accident. He found
that, both of them sustained injuries. He took them to V.Kote
Govt. hospital in an auto for the purpose of treatment.
Thereafter, he informed his maternal uncle Rajareddy about the
incident and Rajareddy came to V.Kote Govt. hospital. Then
doctors advised to take the victims for higher treatment at
Kuppam Medical College and therefore both of them were taken
to the said hospital by ambulance. It is further stated in the
first information that since he was arranging for treatment to
victims there is delay in filing the first information, as such
action may be taken against the rider of motor cycle bearing
No.KA-53-ES-8253.
13. On the basis of this information received by the Mulbagal
Rural police on 18.02.2021, Crime No.31/2021 is registered
against the rider of motor cycle bearing No.KA-53-ES-8253 for
the offence p/u/s 279, 337 of IPC. On the same day spot
panchanama was conducted in which spot was shown by the
first informant. It was tar road having 30ft width and 5ft
(SCCH-12) 12 MVC. No. 2004 C/W 2005/2021
foothpath on both sides. At 10ft away there is divider. Further
both vehicles found on the spot even after two days of the
accident and they were seized for the purpose of investigation as
per Ex.P.3 mahazar. On 22.02.2021 IMV inspection was
conducted in which both the vehicles sustained damages on the
front and right side and accident was not due to any
mechanical defect.
14. As per Ex.P.5 wound certificate petitioner in MVC
No.2004/2021 sustained fracture dislocation of head of
proximal phylanx of 2nd toe which is said to be grievous in
nature. As per the final report one Satish S/o late Hanumappa
is found to be rider of motor cycle bearing No.KA-53-ES-8253
and guilty of the offence u/s 279, 337 and 338 of IPC and
charge sheet is filed against him. Discharge summary is issued
by PES hospital, Kuppam in which it is mentioned as due to
history of RTA head on collision between 2 two wheelers at
around 7.30 pm at Tayluru on 16.02.2021. On the basis of
these documents petitioner in 2004/2021 contended that he
sustained injury due to RTA.
15. But 2nd respondent firstly disputed involvement of the
vehicle and secondly disputed that Satish was rider of the said
vehicle. According to him the motor cycle bearing No.KA-53-ES-
8253 was falsely implicated in the case and it is one Anand who
was riding the vehicle. To prove this fact he cross examined
P.W.1 and 2 at length. Both of them pleaded ignorance of the
suggestion that one Anand was riding the vehicle. They denied
the said vehicle was not at all involved in the accident.
(SCCH-12) 13 MVC. No. 2004 C/W 2005/2021
16. Since P.W.1 and 2 have to plead ignorance that Anand
was riding motor cycle bearing No.KA-53-ES-8253 2 nd
respondent relied upon video and audio recorded by the
investigator by insurance company to prove the said fact. Firstly
authorized representative of 2nd respondent got examined as
R.W.1 and stated that it was Anand who was riding the
aforesaid two wheeler. He has produced one C.D and FSL report
in sealed cover. The other side has not objected at the time of
marking the C.D and FSL report. According to 2 nd respondent
his investigator has met Satish accused as per the charge sheet
and Anand and recorded their conversation regarding filing of
this case and they have mentioned in the audio and video that
Ananda was riding motor cycle bearing No.KA-53-ES-8253 and
as he has no driving licnece to ride the same, Satish is planted
who had driving licence to ride the two wheeler. 2 nd respondent
also contended that in the said audio-video even Anand has
admitted the said fact. This audio-video conversation is played
by 2nd respondent and shown to P.W.6 who is accused Satish,
witness from petitioner side. He admitted his presence in the
said audio-video but pleaded ignorance to some material
suggestion and denied others. He also deposed that he had
drunk at that time and investigator gave him Rs.5,000/- and
asked him to show Anand and as such, he showed Anand to
investigator. He admitted he has not produced any document
to show that such money was given to him and not given any
complaint stating he was forcefully made to say the lie. He
denied that to help the owner of two wheeler and rider Anand,
he is giving false evidence.
(SCCH-12) 14 MVC. No. 2004 C/W 2005/2021
17. On carefully perusing the digital evidence of 2nd
respondent, to prove that Anand was riding vehicle and not
Satish, in the opinion of this court the C.D cannot be relied for
the following reasons.
(i) The investigator or the assistant who recorded the audio-
video is not examined before the court.
(ii) The C.D being digital evidence is not supported by Section
65B of Evidence Act Certificate regarding its authenticity.
(iii) Admitted voice record sample of the accused is not
compared with disputed voice record.
(iv) The evidence of FSL examiner R.W2 is only regarding
video and audio was not tampered and not regarding the fact
that admitted voice record and disputed voice record are one
and the same.
Therefore, on relying upon the C.D this court cannot come
to the conclusion that, it was Anand who was riding the vehicle
and not Satish.
18. But, on perusal of entire oral and documentary evidence
produced before this court there are several discrepancies
which create doubt in the mind of court about the accident,
involvement of motor cycle bearing No.KA-53-ES-8253 and
injuries sustained by the petitioners by the accident dated
16.02.2021. They are noted as under;
(1) According to P.W.1 and 2 there was only one person in
the opponent vehicle. Both of their statement is as under;
(SCCH-12) 15 MVC. No. 2004 C/W 2005/2021
‘ಸದರಿ ಬುಲೇಟ್ನಲ್ಲಿ ಅಪಘಾತದ ದಿನ ಒಬ್ಬನೇ ಸವಾರನಿದ್ದನು’.
But, P.W.6 accused as per charge-sheet stated there was
Anand sitting behind him in the vehicle which means there were
2 persons in the opponent vehicle.
19. P.W.1 and 2 stated that opponent vehicle rider had not
sustained any injuries, but P.W.6 stated that he had sustained
some injuries and pillion rider who was sitting behind him had
sustained injury to his leg and both of them had taken
treatment. His statement is thereunder;
ನಾವು ಮತ್ತು ಎದುರುಗಡೆಯ ವಾಹನದವರು ಇಬ್ಬರೂ
ಕೆಳಗೆ ಬಿದ್ದೇವು. ನನಗೆ ಸ್ವಲ್ಪ ಗಾಯವಾಗಿತ್ತು . ನಾವೇ ಆಸ್ಪತ್ರೆಗೆ
ಹೋದೆವು. ನನ್ನ ಹಿಂದುಗಡೆ ಕುಳಿತಿದ್ದ ಆನಂದ್ ರವರಿಗೆ ಕಾಲಿಗೆ
ಪೆಟ್ಟಾ ಗಿತ್ತು . ಎರಡು ದಿನ ಆಸ್ಪತ್ರೆಯಲ್ಲಿದ್ದು ಮನೆಗೆ ಬಂದಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ.
This create doubt as to whether case of the petitioner is true or
not.
20. As per the first information, first informant Nagaraju had
informed his maternal uncle Rajareddy about the incident and
he came to V.Kote Govt. hospital. The statement in first
information is as under;
ಅಷ್ಟರಲ್ಲಿ ರಸ್ತೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಬರುತ್ತಿದ್ದ ಯಾವುದೋ ಒಂದು
ಆಟೋ ವಾಹನದಲ್ಲಿ ಗಾಯಾಳುವನ್ನು ವಿಕೋಟೆ ಸರ್ಕಾರಿ ಆಸ್ಪತ್ರೆಗೆ
ಕರೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಹೋಗಿ ಚಿಕಿತ್ಸೆಗೆ ದಾಖಲಿಸಿದೆ. ಈ ವಿಚಾರವನ್ನು
ನಮ್ಮ ಮಾವನಾದ ರಾಜಾರೆಡ್ಡಿ ಬಿನ್ಸಲ್ಲಾ ಪುರಪ್ಪರವರಿಗೆ ತಿಳಿಸಿದಾಗ
ಅವರು ವಿಕೋಟೆ ಸರ್ಕಾರಿ ಆಸ್ಪತ್ರೆಗೆ ಬಂದಿದ್ದು ವೈದ್ಯರು ಹೆಚ್ಚಿ ನ
ಚಿಕಿತ್ಸೆಗಾಗಿ ಕುಪ್ಪಂ ನ ಮೆ ಡಿಕಲ್ ಕಾಲೇಜಿಗೆ ಕರೆದುಕೊಂಡು
ಹೋಗಲು ತಿಳಿಸಿದ್ದರ ಮೇರೆಗೆ…..
(SCCH-12) 16 MVC. No. 2004 C/W 2005/2021
But P.W.7 Rajareddy claims himself to be the eye witness to the
incident and stated that he was going behind the aforesaid two
wheelers and found the accident happening, treated the injured
and took them to hospital. His deposition is as under;
ಆ ದಿನ ನಾವು ಯಲಹಂಕದಿಂದ ವಿಕೋಟೆಗೆ
ಹೋಗುತ್ತಿದ್ದೇವು. ದ್ವಿ ಚಕ್ರ ವಾಹನದಲ್ಲಿ ಹೋಗುತ್ತಿದ್ದೇವು. ರೆಡ್ಡಪ್ಪ
ಮತ್ತು ಕೃಷ್ಣಪ್ಪ ನಮ್ಮ ಮುಂದುಗಡೆ ಹೋಗುತ್ತಿದ್ದರು. ನಾವು ಮತ್ತು
ಅವರು ಸ್ವಲ್ಪ ದೂರದಲ್ಲಿಯೇ ಹೋಗುತ್ತಿದ್ದೇವು. ನಿಖರ ಅಂತರ
ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ. ಅಪಘಾತವಾದಾಗ ರಾತ್ರಿ ಆಗಿತ್ತು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
ಗಾಯಾಳುವನ್ನು ನಾನೇ ಎತ್ತಿದ್ದೆ.
In the first information presence of Rajareddy at the spot was
not mentioned at all. Yet another doubt is in respect of delay in
filing the first information. It is stated that first informant was
arranging treatment for the victims. MLC extract is produced at
Ex.P.;17 and 10. They are not supported by police intimation
given to nearby police station. Only MLC extract is produced
and not police intimation.
21. Further, I have carefully perused the IP records of both
the petitioners produced at Ex.P.18 and 20. In the initial
nursing record found in both IP records it is mentioned as case
of RTA skid and fall and in all other entries it is mentioned as
history of RTA collusion between 2 two wheelers. Since the
involvement of the vehicle and rider both are disputed, evidence
of eye witness is necessary to prove the case of petitioner. In
case on hand, one Rajareddy said to be eye witness but his
evidence is not reliable for the aforesaid reasons.
(SCCH-12) 17 MVC. No. 2004 C/W 2005/2021
22. That apart P.W-6 who is accused in charge sheet and who
claimed himself to be the driver of offending vehicle stated that
investigators of the insurance company paid hin Rs. 5000/- and
asked him to take them near Anand, that he had drunk and
took them to Anand. His deposition reads as under:
ನಾನೇ ವಿಮಾ ಕಂಪನಿಯವರನ್ನು ಆನಂದ್ ರವರ ಬಳಿ
ಕರೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಹೋಗಿ ಆನಂದ್ ರವರ ಎದುರು ನಿನ್ನ ಬಳಿ ಡಿಎಲ್
ಇಲ್ಲದ ಕಾರಣ ನನ್ನ ಡಿಎಲ್ ಅನ್ನು ನೀಡಿದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ತನಿಖಾಧಿಕಾರಿಯ ಬಳಿ
ಹೇಳಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿಕೆ ನೀಡಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ
ಮುಂದುವರೆದು ನಾನು ಅವರು ಬಂದ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಮದ್ಯಪಾನ
ಮಾಡಿದ್ದು , ಅವರು ನನಗೆ ರೂ.5 ಸಾವಿರ ಕೊಡುತ್ತೇನೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿ
ರೂ.5 ಸಾವಿರ ಹಣ ಕೊಟ್ಟರು ಮತ್ತು ಆನಂದ್ ಎಲ್ಲಿ ಅವರಲ್ಲಿಗೆ
ಕರೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಹೋಗಿ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿದ್ದು , ನಾನು ಅವರನ್ನು ಆನಂದ್
ಇದ್ದಲ್ಲಿಗೆ ಕರೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಹೋದೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳುತ್ತಾ ರೆ. ಆ ರೀತಿ ಹಣ
ನೀಡಿರುವ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಯಾವುದಾದರೂ ದಾಖಲೆಯನ್ನು ಹಾಜರು ಮಾಡಿದ್ದಿರಾ
ಎಂದರೆ ಇಲ್ಲ. ನನ್ನಿಂದ ಸುಳ್ಳು ಹೇಳಿಸುತ್ತಿದ್ದಾ ರೆ ಎಂದು ದೂರು
ನೀಡಿದ್ದಿರಾ ಎಂದರೆ ಇಲ್ಲ.
This evidence of PW-6 accused gives an indication, that this
witness is absolutely not reliable as he has not produced any
evidence to show that he received money from investigator and
told lie about the riding by Anand. Because, if his words are
believed, it can be assumed if he could help the investigator,
there are all chances that he could help the petitioner and
owner also if they requested him. Therefore, in the opinion of
this court, the entire case does no inspire the confidence to
grant compensation in favour of petitioners. The case of the
petitioners is doubtful as to rash and negligent riding of the
rider of motor cycle bearing No.KA-53-ES-8253. Hence,
petitioners have not proved the injuries shown in the petition
are sustained by them by RTA dt. 16.02.2021 due to rash and
negligent riding of rider of Royal Enfield bike bearing reg.No.KA-
(SCCH-12) 18 MVC. No. 2004 C/W 2005/202153-ES-8253. Accordingly, Issue No.1 in both cases are
answered in the Negative.
23. ISSUE NO.2 to 4 IN BOTH CASES: Since petitioners have
not proved rash and negligent riding of the rider of motor cycle
bearing no. KA-53-ES-8253, deciding their age, occupation,
income and permanent disability does not arise. Further, 2 nd
respondent though contended petitioner himself was negligent
in riding the vehicle, in the respondent side evidence no
material is putforth to prove the said fact therefore 2 nd
respondent has not proved the negligence on part of the
petitioner in the above case. Since, negligence is not proved
petitioners are not entitled for compensation at the hands of
this court. Accordingly, Issue no. 2 to 4 in both the cases
answered in the Negative.
24. ISSUE NO.5 in both the cases:- In view of above reasons
I proceed to pass following;
ORDER IN MVC NO.2004/2021
The petition filed by the petitioner
u/Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is
hereby dismissed with costs.
The Advocate fee is fixed at
Rs.1,000/-.
Award be drawn accordingly.
ORDER IN MVC NO.2005/2021
The petition filed by the petitioner
u/Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is
hereby dismissed with costs.
(SCCH-12) 19 MVC. No. 2004 C/W 2005/2021
The Advocate fee is fixed at
Rs.1,000/-.
Award be drawn accordingly.
The original judgment shall be kept in
MVC No.2004/2021 and the copy of the
same be retained in MVC No. 2005/2021.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, corrected and then
pronounced in the Open Court on this 17th day of December, 2024)
(Vidyalaxmi Bhat)
XI Addl. Small Causes Judge
and ACJM, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE
MVC No.2004/2021 and MVC No.2005/2021
Witnesses examined for the petitioner :-
P.W.1 Reddappa.J @ Reddappa
P.W.2 Krishnappa.K @ Krishnappa
P.W.3 Dr.R.Vinoth
P.W.4 Dr.Nagaraj.B.N
P.W.5 Dr.Nagaraj.B.N
P.W.6 Satish
P.W.7 S.Rajareddy
Documents marked for the petitioner :-
Ex.P.1 Copy of FIR
Ex.P.2 Copy of First information
Ex.P.3 Spot panchanama
Ex.P.4 IMV report
Ex.P.5 Wound certificate
(SCCH-12) 20 MVC. No. 2004 C/W 2005/2021
Ex.P.6 Copy of final report
Ex.P.7 Notarized copy of Aadhaar card
of petitioner P.W.1
Ex.P.8 Wound certificate
Ex.P.9 Notarized copy of Aadhaar card
of petitioner P.W.1
Ex.P.10 Discharge summary
Ex.P.11 Medical bills (12 in nos)
Ex.P.12 Prescription( 01 in No)
Ex.P.13 Discharge summary
Ex.P.14 Medical bills
Ex.P.15 Prescriptions ( 4 in nos)
Ex.P.16 Authorization letter
Ex.P.17 MLC register extract
Ex.P.18 Case sheet
Ex.P.19 MLC register extract
Ex.P.20 Case sheet
Ex.P.21 Clinical notes
Ex.P.22 X-ray
Ex.P.23 Clinical notes
Ex.P.24 X-ray
Ex.P.25 Aadhaar card of Satish
Ex.P.26 Order sheet and Ple in C.C.
No.370/2021Sr.Civil Judge,JMFC, Mulbagal
Ex.P.27 Aadhaar card of S.Rajareddy
Witnesses examined for the respondents :-
R.W.1 S.Narendran
R.W.2 Srikar.D.Kulakarni
(SCCH-12) 21 MVC. No. 2004 C/W 2005/2021
Documents marked for the respondents :-
Ex.R.1 C.D Ex.R.2 Audio-Video authentication report given by
Proaxis Solutions Forensic Science Lab
(Vidyalaxmi Bhat),
XI Addl. Small Causes Judge
and ACJM, Bangalore.
Digitally
signed by
VIDYALAXMI
VIDYALAXMI BHAT
BHAT Date:
2024.12.19
14:59:13
+0530