Bangalore District Court Role Krono @ Johny vs Your Kids(R) Our Kids on 11 February, 2016 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AT BENGALURU (SCCH:15) DATED: THIS THE 11th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016 PRESENT: Smt.K.Katyayini, B.Com., LL.B., XIII Addl.Small Cause Judge & Member, MACT, Bengaluru. MVC No.7617/2008 Petitioner/s Role Krono @ Johny, S/o Krono, Aged about 42 years, R/at No.306, 6th Cross, 3rd Main Road, Venkatapura, Koramangala, Bengaluru. (Petitioner has affixed his Left hand thumb impression to the petition and Vakalath, since he even cannot shake his hands) (By Pleader Sri.Nanjundaswamy.) V/s Respondent/s 1.Your Kids(R) Our Kids, No.44/1A, Lakshmi Industrial Estate Main, Bannerghatta road, Bengaluru 560 029. (RC owner of car bearing Reg.No.KA51/6267) (By Pleader Exparte.) (SCCH15) 2 MVC.7617/2008 2.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., 105A/107A, Cears Plaza, 136, Residency Road, Bengaluru 560 025. (Policy No.OG081701 181200001415, valid from 20.09.2007 to 19.09.2008) (By Pleader Sri.S.Krishna Kishore.) JUDGMENT Petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 166 of MV Act seeking grant of compensation on account of injuries he has suffered in RTA. 2. Initially, this petition was assigned to the Hon'ble SCCH17 and subsequently as per Notification No.ADM I/483 dated 11.11.2008, it was reassigned to this Tribunal for disposal in accordance with law. 3. The brief case of petitioner is that on 01.09.2008 at about 9:45 p.m., he was proceeding being the rider of the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA01 EF4660 on the extreme left side of Hosur Luskar road. When he reached in front of Prestige Acro Police Apartment, the driver of car bearing registration No.KA51/6267 came (SCCH15) 3 MVC.7617/2008 from the backside in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to his motor cycle. b) Because of which, he fell down and suffered severe injuries all over the body. Accident took place solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the car driver. Therefore, 1st respondent being the RC owner and 2nd respondent being the insurer of the car are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Accordingly, prayed to allow the petition as sought for. 4. In response to due service of notices, both the respondents appeared through their respective counsels and filed their separate statement of objections to the main petition denying the petition averments. b) 1st respondent has admitted its ownership over the car and contended that driver of car at the time of accident was one Mrs.Suman Kapoor and she was driving the car with care and caution after observing the vehicular movements. She was moving the vehicle, but petitioner had overtook the car with high speed; dashed to the car and was exposed to the accident. (SCCH15) 4 MVC.7617/2008 c) However Mrs. Suman Kapoor herself admitted the petitioner to Sagar Apollo hospital, Jaynagar and she had paid a sum of Rs.41,000/ towards treatment in cash. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition against it with costs. d) Per contra, 2nd respondent has admitted the policy and its force on the date of accident, but has contended that vehicle involved in the accident is transport vehicle but the driver possess driving licence only for non transporting vehicle. Since, there is no specific endorsement for transport vehicle and driving licence is only LMV non transport there is breach of policy conditions. e) Moreover, there is charge sheet against the accused driver for the offences punishable under Section 3(1) read with 181 of MV Act for no driving licence as well. Hence, it is not liable to pay the compensati