The Branch Manager vs Smt Prameela Bai
2021 Latest Caselaw 28 Kant

                          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

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. 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

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

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

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

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