Karnataka High Court
Sri Kariyappa vs Mr.Manjappa on 31 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:30274
MFA No. 876 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 876 OF 2014 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI KARIYAPPA
S/O BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
R/O HADADI VILLAGE
DAVANAGERE TALUK 577002
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MR.MANJAPPA
S/O NAGAPPA
MAJOR
R/AT HADADI VILLAGE
DAVANAGERE TQ & DIST 577002.
Digitally signed
by BHARATHI 2. SRI C M HANUMANTHAPPA
S S/O MASIYAPPA
Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
COURT OF
KARNATAKA R/AT HADADI VILLAGE
DAVANAGERE TQ. & DIST 577002.
3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
M/S NATIONAL INS. CO. LTD
DIVISIONAL OFFICE
MELAGIRI PLAZA
OPP. DENTAL COLLEGE
MCC "B" BLOCK
DAVANAGERE 577002.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ARUN PONNAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR R3
R1 & R2 -SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:30274
MFA No. 876 of 2014
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 2.3.2012 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1133/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND MACT-II, DAVANGERE, DISMISSING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 02.03.2012 passed in MVC No. 1133/2010 by the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge and MACT-II, Davanagere1, whereunder the claim petition filed by the claimant has been dismissed.
2. The relevant facts necessary for consideration of the present appeal are that, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident dated 01.3.2010, the claimant filed a claim petition contending, inter alia, that when he was walking on the road, on the date of the accident, a motorcycle being ridden by the 1st respondent, owned by the 2nd respondent and insured with 3rd respondent insurer came 1 Hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal' -3- NC: 2024:KHC:30274 MFA No. 876 of 2014 and hit the claimant causing the accident in question, whereunder, he sustained grievous injuries. Hence, he filed the claim petition claiming compensation for the injuries sustained.
3. The 1st and 2nd respondents filed their statement of objections denying the case of the claimant. 3rd respondent insurer filed objections as well as additional statement of objections denying the case of the claimant. It is the specific contention of 3rd respondent - insurer that the vehicle owned by the 2nd respondent which was insured by 3rd respondent i.e., motorcycle bearing No.KA 17/EA-4264 was not involved in the accident. That there is a delay of 47 days in lodging the complaint. Hence, respondents sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
4. The claimant examined himself as PW.1 and a Doctor has been examined as PW.2. Exs.P1 to P11 has been marked in evidence. The official of the insurer has been examined as RW.1. Exs.R1 to R8 has been marked in evidence. The Tribunal vide judgment and award dated 02.03.2012 dismissed the claim petition. Being aggrieved, the claimant has preferred the above appeal.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:30274 MFA No. 876 of 2014
5. Heard submissions of Sri Hareesh Bhandary T., learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri Arun Ponnappa, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.
6. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the claimant has specifically alleged regarding the occurrence of the accident and has also adduced his testimony as PW.1 who has been adequately cross examined. That a stray sentence in the cross examination will not be detrimental to the case of the claimant. He further submits that the Doctor has deposed with regard to the injuries sustained by the claimant. Hence, he seeks for allowing of the claim petition and granting of the relief sought for.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent insurer has contended that the insurer has appointed as an investigator to investigate the claim made, who has submitted his investigation report (Ex.R8). The statements recorded by the investigator have also been marked as Exs.R1 to R4 and R7. He further contends that a perusal of the said documents along with the admission made by the PW.1 in his cross examination discloses that 1st respondent has caused the accident in -5- NC: 2024:KHC:30274 MFA No. 876 of 2014 question while he was riding his vehicle and since the vehicle of 1st respondent did not have an insurance policy, the vehicle of the 2nd respondent which was insured with 3rd respondent has been implicated. It is further contended that PW.1 has specifically admitted that he has not seen which vehicle has caused the accident and having regard to the material on record which discloses that he has a poor eye sight, the claimant not having specifically noticed that the vehicle of 2nd respondent has caused the accident, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition. Hence, he further submits that the Tribunal has adequately appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record and dismissed the claim petition which ought not to be interfered with by this Court in the present appeal.
8. The submissions made by both the learned counsels have been considered and the material on record including the records of the Tribunal have been perused. The questions that arise for consideration is "whether the judgment and award of the Tribunal dismissing the claim petition is erroneous and liable to be interfered with?".
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:30274 MFA No. 876 of 2014
9. The accident is alleged to have occurred on 01.03.2010. Admittedly, the complaint has been lodged on 17.04.2010 after a delay of 48 days.
10. The 3rd respondent - insurer has appointed as an investigator to investigate the claim made by the petitioner and the report has been marked as Ex.P8. The statements of various persons recorded by the investigator have also been marked as noticed above. In the investigation report also it is stated that the claimant has not seen that which vehicle caused the accident. That the 1st respondent was involved in the accident and since the vehicle of the 1st respondent did not have a policy of the insurance, the vehicle of the 2nd respondent has been implicated. Hence, it is the opinion of the investigator that the claim made by the petitioner is a false one.
11. The claimant examined himself as PW.1. In his cross examination he has clearly admitted that he has not seen the vehicle which caused the accident and that it is stated that the vehicle which caused the accident belongs to the 1st respondent.
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:30274 MFA No. 876 of 2014
12. Although it is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there are other statements made in the cross examination of PW.1 and the statement at para No.4 of the cross examination on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for respondent No.3 - insurer is a stray admission and is not liable to be accepted, having regard to the fact that there are various other material on record to indicate that it was not the vehicle owned by the 2nd respondent that was involved in the accident in question, it cannot be construed that the admission of PW1 is a stray one.
13. The reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on the testimony of the Doctor to contend that the same would also demonstrate that the claimant has suffered injuries in the accident in question is also not liable to be accepted having regard to the fact that the contest by the 3rd respondent is with regard to the assertion by the claimant that the injuries sustained in the accident was caused by the vehicle belonging to the 2nd respondent. Hence, the testimony of PW.2 will not aid the case of appellant.
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:30274 MFA No. 876 of 2014
14. It is further noticed that in the present case, the statement recorded by the investigator of the claimant (Ex.R1), the wife of the claimant (Ex.R2), son of claimant (Ex.R3) and another two witnesses (Exs.R4 and R7) have been marked. The officer of the 3rd respondent - insurer has been examined as RW.1 wherein it is deposed as to the steps taken by the insurer to have the claim made by the claimant investigated through its investigator and the investigation report is also marked as Ex.R8.
15. It is clear and forthcoming from the aforementioned that there is sufficient material to indicate that it was not the vehicle owned by the 2nd respondent which had caused the accident in question. The claimant had specifically averred in the claim petition that the accident has been caused by the 1st respondent who has allegedly riding the vehicle of the 2nd respondent. In the present case, upon re-appreciation of the material on record, it indicates that 1st respondent was riding his vehicle when the accident was caused. In order to claim compensation from the 3rd respondent, the claim petition has been filed alleging that the accident has been caused by the 1st respondent while riding the vehicle of the 2nd respondent. -9-
NC: 2024:KHC:30274 MFA No. 876 of 2014
16. The Tribunal while appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record has recorded the following findings:
"10. In the cross examination he admitted that one Sri.Manjappa caused the accident and the said Sri. Manjappa was owner of the vehicle which dashed him. He further admitted the vehicle which caused the accident was owned by Sri. Manjappa. In the cross examination he further admitted that the Investigator from the Insurance company visited the village and conducted investigation. The statement given by him before the Investigator, which is enclosed with the Photograph of the petitioner is marked as Ex.R1. The statement of his wife Smt. Thippamma given before the Investigating Officer is marked as Ex.R2. The said statement is enclosed with the photograph of Smt. Thippamma. The statement of Sri.Shekharappa, (the son of the petitioner) recorded by the Investigating Officer is marked as Ex.R3. The said statement is also enclosed with the photograph of Sri.Shekharappa. Ex.R4 is the statement of Sri.Kavalappa Basavarajappa. Ex.R4 is the also enclosed with his photograph. Ex.R1 to R4 are marked during the course of cross examination of PW1.
11. In the cross examination, PW.1 deposed that the respondent No.1 is the member of village panchayath and the said Sri.Manjappa owned motor cycle and he caused the accident by his own motor cycle. The said motor cycle is not insured. Hence, I find strong force in the defence set up by 3rd respondent Insurance Company.
13. The evidence placed on record reveals that there is a collusion with the police officials and got registered a false case at Hadadi Police Station in Cr.No.30/2010 as against the motor cycle bearing Reg No.KA-17/EA-4264. But in fact, the said vehicle was not at all involved in the accident. Under circumstances, much importance cannot be attached to Ex.P3 (charge sheet)."
(emphasis supplied)
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30274 MFA No. 876 of 2014
17. It is forthcoming from the aforementioned, that the Tribunal has adequately appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record and dismissed the claim petition with cost of `5,000/-. Upon re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the appellant is failed in demonstrating that said findings is erroneous and liable to be interfered with in the present appeal. Hence the question framed for consideration is answered in the Negative.
18. Hence, the following ORDER
(i) The above appeal is dismissed;
(ii) The judgment and award dated 02.03.2012 passed in MVC No. 1133/2010 by the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge and MACT-II, Davanagere are affirmed.
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE BS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8