Ramesh Chandra Dutt vs Basappa and Others

Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—This appeal by the owner of the motor vehicle which sustained damages, as well as being its in-mate suffered injuries, aggrieved by the Judgment and award dated 3.1.2011 in MVC 7265/2009 on the file of the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-18), for short ''MACT'', is insofar as quantum of compensation towards damages and injury.

As regards damages to the motor vehicle bearing No. KA-04-MF 6938 belonging to the appellant and driven by him, in an accident that occurred on 22.6.2009 at about 10.20 a.m. due to the rash and negligent driving of the motor vehicle being Tata sumo bearing certificate of registration No. KA-03-MD-5143 is not in dispute. Respondents, owner and driver of the offending vehicle though served with notice are conspicuously absent and unrepresented.

There is force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the MACT declined to award compensation for damages to the vehicle despite the claim as discernable from the averments in the petition registered as MVC 7265/2009. It is the oral testimony of PW-1, appellant that the insurer of his vehicle paid Rs. 1,17,808/- as against the claim for Rs. 1,60,804/- towards repairs, spare parts and labour chargers while the remaining Rs. 42,996/- was paid by the appellant. Appellant placed before the MACT Ex. P9 the copy of the certificate of registration of the motor vehicle belonging to the appellant; Ex. P10 the invoice/cash memo dated 21.8.2009 of Trident Automobile Pvt. Ltd., for Rs. 1,60,804/- towards spare parts, labour charges, accident repair charges, paint material and painting charges for the vehicle bearing certificate of registration No. KA-04-MF 6938 and Ex. P11 the Bank receipt voucher of Trident Automobile Pvt. Ltd. For having received on the account of the appellant Rs. 1,17,808/- and Rs. 22,512/- in cash, totaling to Rs. 1,37,139/- from Reliance Insurance drawn on HDFC Bank in terms of the invoice on 12.9.2009, while two bank receipt vouchers dated 13.7.2009 for Rs. 30,000/- and dated 9.9.2009 for Rs. 12,996/- by the appellant to Trident Automobile Pvt. Ltd., in addition to a receipt Ex. P12 for Rs. 30,000/- issued by Trident Automobile Pvt. Ltd.

The fact that motor vehicle belonging to the appellant sustained damages in the accident that occurred on 22.6.2009 is not in dispute in the light of Ex. P4-Motor Vehicle Accident Report recording the extent of damage to both the motor vehicles. The invoice Ex. P10 provides description of the spare parts replaced by way of repairs to the vehicle belonging to the appellant, due to an accident. The total amount claimed towards spare parts, labour charges, paint material and attendant charges by M/s. Trident Automobile Pvt. Ltd., is Rs. 1,60,804/-, while the insurer of the said motor vehicle belonging to the appellant based upon the policy of Insurance paid Rs. 1,37,139/- and therefore, the balance of Rs. 23,665/- was made good by the appellant, for not fault of his. As a consequence is entitled to the said amount. The MACT though framed issue No. 2 as to whether the claimant proved that he was R.C. owner of the vehicle bearing certificate of registration No. KA-04-MF 6938 damaged in the accident, nevertheless while answering the said issue in the negative observed that Ex. P9, a notarized copy of the R.C. Book, Ex. P10 -invoice and cash memos, Exs. P11 and P12-Bank receipts issued by Trident Automobiles, were not sufficient to establish and prove the fact that he was the owner of the said vehicle, since no person from M/s. Trident Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., was examined and accordingly denied compensation under the head of ''damages to motor vehicle''.

It is no doubt true that in George Nickm v. KSRTC ILR 2000 KAR 2009 this Court observed that in the absence of evidence of the person who carried out repairs to motor vehicle, since damaged in an accident, compensation under the head of ''damages to motor vehicle'' is impermissible. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, more appropriately, having regard to the Motor Vehicle Accident report Ex. P4 itemising the damages noticed by the Authority under the ''M.V. Act'' in respect of the motor vehicle belonging to the appellant, coupled with a copy of R.C. Book Ex. P9 which was not disputed nor the oral testimony tested in cross-examination coupled with the fact that invoice, and cash memo of M/s. Trident Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., disclose repairs carried out to the motor vehicle, the MACT was not justified in denying compensation for repairs towards damage caused to the motor vehicle belonging to the appellant. In that view of the matter, appellant is entitled to Rs. 23,665/- being the balance cost of repairs as compensation for damages caused to the motor vehicle.

As regards compensation for injury suffered by the appellant, suffice it to notice that Ex. P5 wound certificate issued by Dr. S.S. Amarnath certifies that appellant sustained injury to his lower limb experiencing severe pain and inability to flex his back, which is, when diagnosed on a clinical and radiological examination to be "Wedge compression fracture body of L4 without any neurovascular deficiency", grievous in nature. In Ex. P7, very same doctor who treated the appellant, on a clinical examination, noticed tenderness in the lumbar region, no neurovascular deficiency in the lower limbs, movement of both hips painful but in full range and both SI joints are clinically normal and therefore, prescribed medication and despite advise for admission, appellant having preferred to be treated as an out-patient, was advised to wear LS Corset for the next 4-6 weeks during his rest period and to consider MRT/CT scan Spine if pain persists. Except for self serving testimony of PW-1/appellant, Dr. S.S. Amarnath is not examined over alleged permanent disability occasioned due to the said injury nor MRI/Scan reports placed before Court. In short, there is nothing to establish permanent disability. Regard being had to the evidence, both oral and documentary, the MACT awarded Rs. 20,000/- under the head ''pain and suffering'' and Rs. 1,500/- towards medical bills and Rs. 1,420/- towards medical expenses. Appellant having placed no material whatsoever to establish, proof of income or age, the MACT reckoned notional income of Rs. 3,000/- per month and that he may not have attended to duties for 3-4 months due to the injury and accordingly awarded Rs. 10,000/- under the head loss of earning due to laid-up period'', while denying compensation towards loss of income on account of permanent disability''. Rs. 10,000/- was added under the head loss of amenities and future loss of happiness due to pain through out his life'' and Rs. 5,000/- towards attendant charges, diet and traveling, in all Rs. 46,500/- with interest at 6% p.a.

In my considered opinion, the MACT cannot but be said to have appreciated oral and documentary evidence while recording reasons, findings and conclusions in the matter of determination of compensation for injury not qualifying for interference.

Appeal is allowed in part. The Judgment and award impugned is modified entitling the appellant to Rs. 23,665/- with interest at 6% p.a. on the said sum from the date of petition in addition to the amount awarded by the MACT, and in all other respects remains unaltered.