Karnataka High Court
H M Basavaraju vs The Manager on 30 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:30013
MFA No. 7749 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
MFA NO. 7749 OF 2012 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
H M BASAVARAJU
S/O MASTIGOWDA@PUTTANNA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/O HONNAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE
NUGGEHALLY HOBLI,CHANNRAYAPATNA
TALUK,HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201 ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. GIRISH B BALADARE, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE MANAGER
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL
INSURANCE CO.,NO 363
SRI HARI COMPLEX
SEETHA VILAS ROAD
MYSORE-570 024
2. NANJEGOWDA
Digitally signed by AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
PRAJWAL A S/O SUBBEGOWDA
SBM EMPLOYEE,NO 23
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA CHANNARAYAPATNA TOWN
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H S LINGARAJ, ADV. FOR R1;
SRI. RAJARAM SOORYAMBAIL, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.03.2012
PASSED IN MVC NO.46/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING
OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, CHANNARAYAPATNA,
DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:30013
MFA No. 7749 of 2012
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
In this appeal, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and award dated 17.03.2012 passed in M.V.C.No.46/2008 by the Fast Track Court, Channarayapatna ('the Tribunal' for short).
2. Appellant is the petitioner, respondent No.1 is respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 is respondent No.1 before the Tribunal. For the sake of convenience, the rank of the parties shall be referred to as per their status before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are, on 07.08.2007 at about 07.45 p.m., while the petitioner was riding the motor cycle along with one Swamy as a pillion rider on Honnamaranahally-Nuggehally road near the land of respondent No.1, motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA- 13/R-5806 came from the opposite direction and dashed against the motor cycle of the petitioner due to -3- NC: 2024:KHC:30013 MFA No. 7749 of 2012 which, he sustained injuries, was treated at KIMS Hospital and NIMHANS Hospital, Bangalore and was under hospitalization for 15 days. After taking treatment, the petitioner has approached the Tribunal for grant of compensation. Claim was opposed by the Insurance Company. The Tribunal after taking the evidence and hearing both parties though assessed compensation of Rs.1,78,000/- but dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this appeal on various grounds.
4. Heard the arguments of Sri.Girish B.Baladare, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.H.S.Lingaraj, learned counsel for the Insurance Company and Sri.Rajaram Sooryambail, learned counsel for the owner of the motor cycle.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the motor cycle in question was covered with insurance as in the course of cross-examination, the Officer of the Insurance Company admitted the -4- NC: 2024:KHC:30013 MFA No. 7749 of 2012 cover note. As per the cover note, there is valid insurance and the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. It is further contended that the compensation assessed is on the lower side and sought for enhancement.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has contended that the Insurance Company has verified the cover note and the policy issued in favour of the motor cycle and the cover note do not tally with each other. On the date of accident, there is no valid coverage as per the policy. The Xerox copy of the cover note is confronted to the officer of the Insurance Company. Even the Insurance Company is ready to verify and pay compensation provided if they produce original cover note. The compensation assessed by the Tribunal is based on the evidence and it is not a case for enhancement. The Tribunal has considered all these aspects and rightly dismissed the claim petition and sought for dismissal of the appeal. -5-
NC: 2024:KHC:30013 MFA No. 7749 of 2012
7. Learned counsel for the owner of the vehicle has contended that the motor cycle was under the policy of insurance. The cover note produced by the petitioner has been accepted by the officer of the Insurance Company. Therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify its liability.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments addressed on behalf of the parties and perused the records.
9. The material on record goes to show that there was an accident involving two motor cycles. Petitioner is rider of one of the motor cycles. The medical records show that the petitioner has sustained injures, he was treated in various hospitals and as an injured, he is entitled to claim compensation. The Tribunal considering the nature of injuries referred to in Exs.P7 to P16 while holding that the petitioner has suffered undisplaced fracture of frontal bone, fracture of posterolateral wall of right maxillary antrum with -6- NC: 2024:KHC:30013 MFA No. 7749 of 2012 haemosinus, assessed the compensation. The rider of the offending motor cycle is one M.S.Girigowda, who is pleaded guilty before the Magistrate in C.C.No.480/2008. Negligence on the part of the offending motor cycle is thereby explained. The Tribunal having regard to the nature of injuries, assessed the compensation at Rs.1,78,000/- and it is reasonable and there is no scope for enhancing the compensation.
10. A careful perusal of the impugned judgment makes out that the Tribunal has discussed about the validity of the cover note, which is not marked in evidence. The policy of insurance is marked at Ex.R2 that it was issued on 29.08.2007 covering the risk from 22.08.2007 to 21.08.2008. The date of accident was on 07.08.2007. From the recitals of Ex.R2, on the date of accident, there is no insurance cover. The petitioner has not proved the cover note bearing No.PC0611659835 which the Insurance Company -7- NC: 2024:KHC:30013 MFA No. 7749 of 2012 claiming that it is not original and not issued by the Insurance Company. The owner of the motor cycle is though represented, he has not placed any evidence explaining that there is a valid insurance on the date of accident. Before the Tribunal, the owner of the vehicle was placed exparte. The Tribunal though considered that the Insurance Company cannot be directed to pay the compensation, instead of directing the owner to pay compensation, dismissed the claim petition. No satisfactory reason is forthcoming in the impugned judgment for dismissal of the claim against the owner of the motor cycle. Therefore, the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay the compensation. The appeal merits consideration, in the result, the following;
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed in part;
(ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 17.03.2012 passed in M.V.C.No.46/2008 is hereby set aside;
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:30013 MFA No. 7749 of 2012
(iii) The claim petition is allowed against the owner of the motor cycle i.e., against respondent No.1 and dismissed against the Insurance Company i.e., respondent No.2.
(iv) Respondent No.1 is directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,78,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization;
(v) Respondent No.1 shall deposit the compensation within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.
(vi) The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal along with records.
SD/-
(T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA) JUDGE KNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31