Karnataka High Court
Mrs Dilfeeza vs National Insurance Co. Ltd on 2 February, 2022
Bench: P.Krishna Bhat
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT
MFA NO.5260/2011(MV)
C/W
MFA NO.5259/2011(MV)
MFA NO.5260/2011:
BETWEEN:
SYED SAIFULLA
S/O M S RAHAMUTHULLA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT NO.1097, 15TH CROSS
HBR LAYOUT, NEAR NAVEDRA THEATRE
BANGALORE-560043
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. A KUMARAVEL, SRI. SYED KHASIM,
SRI. ABDUL KHADAR, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD
REGIONAL OFFICE
UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE
3RD FLOOR, MISSION ROAD
BANGALORE-560027
2. MR NARAYANA MURTHY
S/O MUNIYAPPA
AGED MAJOR
R/O PANDITHPURA VILLAGE
JALEGE POST KUNDANA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLU TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
... RESPONDENTS
2
(BY SRI. K.S LAKSHMINARASAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. A.M. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17/02/2011 PASSED IN
MVC NO.7944/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL MACT &
CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE,
DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
MFA NO.5259/2011:
BETWEEN:
MRS DILFEEZA
W/O SYED SAIFULLA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT NO.1097, 15TH CROSS
HBR LAYOUT, NEAR NAVENDRA THEATRE
BANGALORE-560043
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. A KUMARAVEL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD
REGIONAL OFFICE
UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE
3RD FLOOR, MISSION ROAD
BANGALORE-560027
2. MR NARAYANA MURTHY
S/O MUNIYAPPA
AGED MAJOR
R/O PANDITHPURA VILLAGE
JALEGE POST KUNDANA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.S LAKSHMINARASAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. A.M. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
3
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17/02/2011 PASSED IN
MVC NO.7943/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL MACT &
CHIEF JUDGE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE,
DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THESE MFA's COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE/ PHYSICAL HEARING, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
These appeals are at the instance of claimants calling in
question the common judgment and award dated 17.02.2011
passed in MVC Nos.7943 & 7944/2009 by the Principal MACT
& Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, by which
claim petitions were dismissed.
2. Case of the claimants is to the effect that on
17.05.2009 at about 2.50 p.m. claimant - Syed Saifulla was
riding motorcycle bearing registration No.Ka-53-J-5987 with
his wife Dilfeeza as a pillion rider and when they reached near
JFSL Factory near Doddaballapura, the offending Hero-Honda
motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-43/J-1487 came in a
rash and negligent manner from opposite direction and
dashed against the motorcycle of claimant resulting in
grievous injuries to them.
3. Before learned Tribunal both the owner of
offending motorcycle and insurance company entered
appearance and filed their separate written statement
denying material averments made in the claim petition.
4. During the trial, claimants examined themselves
as PW1 and PW2 and they also examined a medical officer
Dr.Ramachandra as PW3. Exs.P-1 to P-27 came to be
marked on behalf of claimants. Respondents examined one
of the officials of insurance company as RW1 and Ex.R-1
police of the insurance came to be marked on behalf of
respondents.
5. After hearing the learned counsel on both sides
and perusing the learned Member of the MACT, dismissed the
claim petitions.
6. It is urged in support of the appeals that as
claimants were hospitalized they could not lodge the
complaint immediately after the accident. It is stated that
learned Tribunal has committed an error in dismissing the
claim petitions and therefore appeals should be allowed.
7. Learned counsel for the insurance company
contended that there was inordinate delay in lodging the
complaint and claimants were discharged on 19.05.2009 itself
and in spite of same, complaint came to be lodged only on
17.07.2009. He submitted that learned Tribunal upon
detailed consideration of materials placed, has rightly come to
the conclusion that offending vehicle was involved in causing
the accident and therefore there is no ground to interfere with
the same. He therefore submits that appeals are liable to be
dismissed.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival
contentions and I have carefully perused the records. The
case of claimants is that 17.05.2009 in the afternoon while
claimants were proceeding on the motorcycle bearing
registration No.KA-53-J-5987 near Doddaballapura, the
offending motorcycle had come from the opposite direction
and on account of rash and negligent riding of the rider of
motorcycle accident was caused resulting in grievous injuries
to the claimants.
9. Learned Claims Tribunal upon detailed
consideration of materials placed has disbelieved the case of
claimants and in particular it has noted that even though
accident is said to have taken place on 17.05.2009 involving
the motorcycle, complaint came to be lodged on 17.07.2009
and accordingly, proceeded to dismiss the claim petitions.
10. Careful perusal of records disclose that for
inordinately long period of 62 days, claimants remained silent
and they did not lodge any complaint before the police. Both
the claimants have stated in the evidence that immediately
after the accident they were taken to General Hospital,
Doddaballapura and from there they were referred to
Nimhans Hospital and they were also admitted in RMV
Hospital. Ex.P-23 is the document issued by RMV Hospital,
which shows that complainant was discharged from the
hospital on 19.05.2009 itself. Even before the Claims
Tribunal claimants have not chosen to examine any
independent witnesses nor have they summoned the MLC
register from the Doddaballapura General Hospital to
establish their claim that they had suffered fracture and
injuries on account of rash and negligent riding of the
offending motorcycle. In that view of the matter, finding of
the learned Tribunal being based on evidence, I am not
inclined to interfere with the same. There is no merit in these
appeals and they are liable to be dismissed. Hence, the
following:
JUDGMENT
(1) Appeals are dismissed.
(2) Registry to transmit the records to the
learned Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DR
