1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3673 OF 2017 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
BRANCH OFFICE,
SUGUNA NURSING HOME COMPLEX,
ANTHARAGANGE ROAD,
NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND,
KOLAR - 563 101.
BY
REGIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
5TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
HUDSON CIRCLE,
BANGALORE - 560 027
BY ITS MANAGER.
... APPELLANT
[BY SRI. O.MAHESH, ADVOCATE (THROUGH VC)]
AND:
1. SMT. PRAMEELA BAI
48 YEARS,
W/O LATE LAKSHMAN SINGH
2
2. BHARATH SINGH
AGE 20 YEAR,
S/O LATE LAKSHMAN SINGH,
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.1887,
SAROJAMMA COMPOUND,
2ND CROSS, VIJAYANAGAR,
BANGARPET TOWN,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563101.
3. M/S LANCO INFRATECH LTD.,
LANCO HILLS TECHNOLOGY PARK
PRIVATE LIMITED,
S.NO.201, MANIKONDA,
RAJENDRA NAGAR, RR. DT. DISTRICT,
HYDERABAD,
ANDRA PRADESH - 500 030.
... RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 IS SERVED AND
THEY ARE UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
08.02.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.399/2015 ON THE FILE OF
III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR,
(SITTING AT KGF), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
RS.4,84,500/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% PER ANNUM FROM
THE DATE OF PETITION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the insurer challenging the liability fastened on it to pay the compensation awarded by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kolar (sitting at KGF) and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for the sake of brevity) in MVC No.399/2015.
2. The appellant will henceforth be referred to as the insurer. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 will henceforth be referred to as claimants and respondent No.3 will henceforth be referred to as the owner of the offending vehicle involved in the accident.
3. The claim petition discloses that claimants are the legal representatives of one Bhaskar Singh, who died on 18.09.2010. It is stated that on 18.09.2010, Sri Bhaskar Singh was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-03-TR-2920 and proceeding towards Bangarapet from Tamaka with his friend Askhay riding pillion and at about 11:45 p.m. when he took a right turn 4 on the way near Kogilahalli village gate on Bangalore- Chennai NH-4 road, a vibrator roller vehicle bearing registration No.MP-52-DA-0114 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle) was parked on the left side of the tar road without any indication. It is stated that the deceased could not notice the vibrator roller parked on the road as he was blinded by the bright head light of a vehicle coming from the opposite direction. The deceased dashed against the vibrator roller and due to the impact, the deceased sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital. The claimants filed a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and contended that the deceased was 26 years old and was earning Rs.40,000/- per annum.
4. Both the owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle contested the claim petition. The insurer denied the accident and contended that the offending vehicle was framed so as to lay a claim for compensation. 5
5. Based on the aforesaid rival contentions, the claim petition was set down for trial. Claimant No.1 was examined as PW.1 and she marked Exs.P1 to P11 while the insurer examined its official as RW.1 and he marked Ex.R1, which was the MLC extract of R.L. Jalappa hospital.
6. The Tribunal noted that the complaint - Ex.P1 was lodged by the pillion rider who was riding pillion on the motorcycle along with the deceased. The Tribunal held that the minor discrepancies in the narration of the accident would in itself cannot deny / deprive the claimants of their claim for compensation. The Tribunal noticed that the registered number of the offending vehicle which was stationed on the road was not mentioned in complaint, but it reasoned that both the rider and the pillion rider had sustained injuries and therefore, they could not have noted the registration number and nature of the offending vehicle which was stationed on the road. The Tribunal held that Ex.P4, which was the report of the motor vehicle inspector indicated damages to both the 6 vehicles and therefore, having regard to the fact that the complaint was lodged soon after the accident, the Tribunal held that it was probable that the accident occurred between the motorcycle ridden by the deceased and the vibrator roller owned by respondent No.1 and insured by respondent No.2. The Tribunal, therefore, based on preponderance of probabilities, held that the claimants had proved the accident. However, since the claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Act, the Tribunal did not insist upon the proof of negligence and awarded compensation of Rs.4,84,500/- in all along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization.
7. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award of the Tribunal, the insurer is in appeal and contends that Ex.R1, extract of MLC report, maintained by R.L Jalappa hospital indicated that the accident was due to a hit and run by an unknown vehicle. The learned counsel therefore contended that the vehicle in question has been 7 implicated only to lay a false claim. Learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court Ex.P1, which is the complaint lodged by the pillion rider who stated that the deceased dashed against a stationed vehicle but had not given out the registration number. Learned counsel, therefore, contended that this was a clear case of implication of a vehicle to lodge a false claim.
8. Though the notice of this appeal was issued to respondents, none of them have entered appearance. It is seen from Ex.P1 that the complainant was the pillion rider on the motorcycle which was ridden by the deceased. The complainant categorically mentioned that on 18.09.2010, at about 11:30 p.m., after having dinner at a road side dhaba, the deceased and the complainant were riding on Bangarpet road and when they reached Kogilahalli village gate, another vehicle came from the opposite direction with bright lights on and the rider was blinded by the lights and he dashed against a road side stationed vehicle but had not given out the registration number. The 8 jurisdictional Police who registered Crime No.66/2010 took up investigation and conducted a spot mahazar (Ex.P2) on 19.09.2010 and found that the vehicle in question which was parked by the side of the road was the offending vehicle which was owned by the owner and insured by the insurer herein. No doubt the jurisdictional Police have registered an abated charge sheet against the deceased. That in itself would not exonerate the liability of the insurer since the petition filed was under Section 163A of the Act. All that had to be proved was occurrence of the accident involving the motorcycle and the offending vehicle insured by the insurer. It is clear from Exs.P1, P2, P3, P4, P5 and P7 that the motorcycle ridden by the deceased and the offending vehicle insured by the insurer were involved in the accident.
9. In that view of the matter, there is no error in the appreciation of evidence by the Tribunal and in awarding a compensation of a sum of Rs.4,84,500/- along 9 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization.
Hence, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed. The amount in deposit is ordered to be transferred to the Tribunal for necessary orders.
Sd/-
JUDGE sma