1

INTHE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, HOSUR

Present : Tmt.Roslyn Durai, B.com., M.L.,
Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal Judge (Additional District Judge),Hosur
Friday the 10th day of December, 2021
M.C.O.P. No.550/2018
CNR NO. TNKIOE0008482018

R. Saravanan, S/o. K. Rengachari, aged 46 years, residing at No.60, 3rd Cross, Tirupathi
Majestic Nagar, Hosur Town and Taluk, Krishnagiri District.
... Petitioner
//versus//
1. G. Sanjeevi, S/o. Gopalan, Hindu, age not known, residing at NO. 2/691, Indira Nagar,
Avalapalli Road, Basthi Post, Hosur Town and Taluk, Krishnagiri District.

2. The Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, having its office at
No. 10003/E, 8th Riico Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur 302022, Rajastan State.
...Respondents

This claim petition, filed on 01.12.2018, coming before me for final hearing on

26.11.2021 in the presence of Tmt. K. Selvi, Counsel for the petitioner, and Thiru.

M.Jeevanandham, Counsel for the 2nd respondent, and 1st respondent remained exparte,

and having heard both sides, and perused the documents and evidence, and having stood

over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

ORDER
The petition has been filed by the petitioner U/s. 166 of M.V.Act claiming a

compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- from the respondents for injuries sustained in road accident

on 11.09.2011.

2.The averments of petition in brief are as follows:-

The petitioner/injured R.Saravanan, S/o. K. Rengachari, aged 46 years, and working

as a Master Tech in Titan Company, Hosur and earning Rs.35,000/- per month, and on

11.09.2011, the petitioner was riding his motor cycle bearing Regn.No. TN 47 M 6617

along with his son by name Nitesh Kumar and his sister son by name N. Venkatesh, to go to
 2

his house at Tirupathi Majestic on Hosur to Bagalur road, at 6.15 p.m., a Tempo bearing

Regn. No. KA 16 A 8109 belonging to the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd

respondent company was driven by its driver cum owner by name G. Sanjeevi, came in

opposite side with high speed in a rash and negligent manner, without following any rules of

the road without sounding horn, without any signal, lost control and dashed front side of the

petitioner's motorcycle. The petitioner sustained grievous fracture in right hand, right hand

little finger, right hand knee joint and other multiple vital organs. Immediately the

petitioner was taken to the Amma Hospital, first aid was given to him, and as per advice of

the doctor he has taken to Srinivasa Gowda hospital, Hosur and admitted as a inpatient on

11.9.2011 to 14.9.2011. Due to the accident, he under gone great mental shock, pain and

suffering and loss of earning, and during the period, he spent Rs.50,000/- towards his

medical treatment, and he further need about Rs.3,00,000/- for further treatment. The Sub-

inspector of Police, Hudco P.S. have registered a case against the driver of the said Tempo

bearing Regn. No. KA 16 A 8109, in Cr.No. 426/2011, u/s. 279, 337 of IPC. The 1st

respondent is the owner of Tempo bearing Regn. No. KA 16 A 8109, and the 2nd

respondent is the insurer of the said Tempo. Hence, the 2nd respondent is bound to

indemnify the 1st respondents as per the condition of the policy. Even though the petitioner

is entitled to claim more compensation, he restrict claim to a sum of Rs.40,00,000-00.

Hence this petition.

3. The averments in counter of 2nd respondent in brief are as follows:

The petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts and it is liable to be

dismissed with cost. This respondent denies all the allegations set out in the petition except

those that are specifically admitted. This respondent entitled to contest u/s. 170 of MV Act.
 3

The present petitioner has lodged a false report by suppressing his negligence and also by

leveling allegations against the driver cum owner of the insured Tata Ace vehicle. There

was a delay of 20 days in lodging the said report. The alleged accident has occurred due to

negligence of the present petitioner, who was riding a motor bike at the time of alleged

accident and the same was hit by another unknown vehicle. No such accident was reported

to the insurance company by the 1st respondent owner cum driver in compliance of the

policy conditions. Impugned vehicle LMV Tata Ace vehicle was shown as offending

vehicle, by the present petitioner/ defacto complainant, with a view to entertain a claim and

to make wrongful gains without any truth and materials, since his motor bike was not

having insurance coverage, and also he was not having driving licence. Even the discharge

summary said to be issued by the Srinivasa Speciality hospital, Hosur there was no

reference of involvement of the impugned vehicle LMV Tata Ace vehicle. The impugned

vehicle was not sent for vehicle inspection to ensure the involvement, and also damage said

to be occurred for the said vehicle, and validity of the documents such as fitness and driving

licence of the driver. The petitioner was riding even without wearing a helmet along with

two pillion riders. Thus the petitioner has contributed negligence for the alleged accident.

The Tata Ace vehicle was not holding fitness certificate, and also driver was not holding

driving licence. The petitioner has no loss of earning capacity, loss of income and no loss of

future prospects. The claim of the compensation is very high, excessive and exaggerated.

Hence seeks for dismissal, as against 2nd respondent.

4. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION ARE :

i) Whether the accident had occurred due to the negligent act of the driver of Tempo
bearing regn No.KA-16-A-8109?
ii) Whether the respondents are liable to pay compensation?
 4

iii)What is quantum of compensation, petitioner is entitled to?

5. On the side of the petitioner, petitioner was examined as PW1,and Ex. P1 to P-12 were
marked. On the side of the respondents, no oral and documentary evidence. Heard counsel.
POINT NO.(i) :-
6. The case of the petitioner is that he sustained injuries in the road accident on 11.09.2011.

which was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the first respondent’s Tempo bearing regn

No.KA-16-A-8109. The 1st respondent has not chosen to contest the case. Whereas, the 2nd

respondent has denied the manner of accident and projected a different case, that due to negligence

of petitiner, he was hit by unknown vehicle, and the 1 st respondent's vehicle was shown as offending

vehicle,for wrongful gains, and further the petitioner, had no driving licence, and was driving

without helmet with two pillion riders, which led to the accident. Though the involvement of the

Tempo bearing regn No.KA-16-A-8109 is disputed, the Ex.P-1 FIR prima facie shows the

involvement of the same. The complaint by the petitioner has been given on 30/09/2011 for the

incident on 11/09/2011. The Ex.P-3 shows that the petitioner was admitted on 11/09/2011 with

history of RTA between two-wheeler and four-wheeler. The delay of the 20 days to give complaint

is inordinate, but on that ground alone, the occurrence cannot be doubted, particularly as the 1 st

respondent not chosen to deny the involvement of his vehicle. In the cross of PW1, it is elicited that

the petitioner not aware of the criminal proceedings on his complaint. But the 2 nd respondent not

produced any material to to disbelieve the occurrence.. Now, first point for consideration before this

Tribunal is whether the accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st

respondent's driver.

7. The PW1 has spoken to the manner of the accident, that when he was riding his two

wheeler, with the minor son and minor nephew, in a cautious manner,the Tempo bearing regn

No.KA-16-A-8109, coming from the opposite direction, in a rash and negligent manner, at high

speed,and dashed the front side of his bike, due to which he sustained grievous injuries.The PW1 in

cross-examination, stated that he has driving licence and produced the same for perusal. Neither the
 5

1st respondent, nor any eyewitness to the occurrence have been examined, to disprove the

petitioner’s version. The evidence of PW1 remains uncontradicted. Therefore, this Tribunal is of

view that manner of accident as alleged by petitioner has been proved by petitioner, that it was due

to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle of the 1st respondent. This point is found accordingly.

POINT No.(ii) :-

8. Ex.P4 is the registration certificate of the Tempo bearing regn No.KA-16-A-8109,

standing in the name of the 1st respondent. The Ex.P-5 is the insurance policy of the impugned

vehicle, in the name of 1st respondent, showing that it was insured with the 2 nd respondent for the

period from 17-04-2011 to 16-04-2012. Hence 1st respondent is the owner /insured, and 2nd

respondent is insurer of Tempo bearing regn No.KA-16-A-8109. The 2 nd respondent not produced

any material to infer any violation of the terms of the policy. The petitioner produced the driving

license of the 1st respondent as Ex.P6, which was not disputed by the 2 nd respondent. This Tribunal

holds that there is no violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy of offending vehicle, and

hence the 1st respondent being the owner of the offending vehicle, the 2nd respondent being the

insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and separately liable to pay compensation to the

petitioner and the 2nd respondent is bound to indemnify the 1st respondent. Hence the point for

consideration is answered in favour of petitioner.

POINT No.(iii) :-

9. The quantum of compensation, the petitioner is entitled to be decided. As per Ex.P-3

discharge summary, the petitioner sustained injuries being crush injury to right ring finger, and hans

been treated with wound debridement with K-wire fixation done under local anaesthesia and

analgesics, antibiotics and supportive therapy. Petitioner has taken treatment as inpatient in

Srinivasa Speciality Hospital, from 11/09/2011 to 14/09/2011, thus taken treatment for 4 days. The

Medical Board upon examination of the petitioner has assessed partial permanent disability of

petitioner as 35 %, due to crush and fracture of the right ring finger.

 6

10. The petitioner alleges that he worked as Master Tech in Titan Company, Hosur and

earning Rs.35,000/- per month,. The Ex.P-7 is salary slip to show that his net pay was Rs.9,450/-

in August 2011.However he not produced any proof to show his present pay, to arrive at the loss of

earnings.He admits in cross that there was no break in service, but only that he has taken leave for

long period. Hence the compensation can be granted on percentage method. As per Ex.P-11, the

petitioner claims medical expensess of Rs.34,831/- .

11. Compensation, now determined by tribunal, is detailed below :

Sl.No. Heads Calculation

1. Compensation for partial Permanent disability of 35% - Rs.1,40,000/-

(35 x 4000 )

2. Medical expenditure - Rs. 34,831/-

3. Compensation towards pain and sufferings - Rs. 2,000/-

4. Amount towards extra Nourishment - Rs.1,000/-
5. Amount towards attender charges - Rs.1,000/-
6. Transportation expenses - Rs.2,000/-
7. Partial loss of income (one month) - Rs.9,450/-
Total Compensation (Sl.Nos. 1 to 7) - Rs.1,80,831/-

1. In the result, the petition is partly allowed with proportionate cost.

2. that the 2nd Respondent is directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,80,831/- to the
petitioners.
3. that the award amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5 % p.a., from the date of
petition till date of realization, excluding the default period if any.
4. that the 2nd respondent is directed to deposit the award amount in the State Bank of India
Hosur branch in the account of the Additional District Judge, Hosur, A/c No. 36230251241
(IFSC : SBIN0040155) through NEFT or RTGS within two months.
5. that the deposit shall be intimated to this court vide E-mail to [email protected].

6. that the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the amount on deposit.

7. that the petitioner is directed to pay the deficit court fee within 15 days, failing which, he
 7

is not entitled to any interest.

8. that the advocate fee is fixed at Rs.6,616/-.

Petition filed on : 01/12/2018

C.F.Required: Rs.1,180.50/- , C.F.paid : Rs.500.00 on 01/12/2018
Balance Court fee: Rs.680.50/-
Bill of Cost
Sl.No. Statement of Cost Petitioner's Respondent's side
side
1. Stamp on Petition 1,180.50 --
2. Vakalath nama 10.00 --
3. Process fee 25.00 ---
4. Advocate fee 6,616.00
Total 7,831. 50 ---

Dictated to steno-typist directly by me and typed by her directly, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court this the 09th day of December, 2021.
ROSLYN
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
Digitally signed by ROSLYN DURAI
DN: cn=ROSLYN DURAI, o=TAMIL NADU
STATE JUDICIAL SERVICE, st=Tamil Nadu,

DURAI
c=IN
Location: HOSUR
Date: 2021.12.10 17:30:04 +0530

Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal Judge,

Petitioner side witnesses :-

PW1 - Saravanan

Petitioner side Exhibits :-

Ex.P1 .. Copy of FIR
Ex.P2 .. Medical slip issued by Srinivasa Speciality Hospital, Hosur
Ex.P3 .. Discharge summary issued by Srinivasa Speciality Hospital, Hosur
Ex.P4 .. Copy of Registration Certificate of the Tempo
Ex.P5 .. Copy of Insurance policy of the Tempo
Ex.P6 .. Copy of driving licence of the driver of the Tempo
Ex.P7 .. Salary slip of petitioner
Ex.P8 .. Copy of Aadhar card of the petitioner
Ex.P9 .. Copy of Pan card of the petitioner
Ex.P10 .. Copy of Bank pass book of the petitioner
Ex.P11 .. Medical bills
Ex.P12 .. Disability Certificate
 8

Respondents side witnesses and Exhibits :- Nil

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

ROSLYN Digitally signed by ROSLYN DURAI

DN: cn=ROSLYN DURAI, o=TAMIL
NADU STATE JUDICIAL SERVICE,

DURAI
st=Tamil Nadu, c=IN
Location: HOSUR
Date: 2021.12.10 17:30:23 +0530

Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal Judge,