Karnataka High Court
Divisional Manager vs Ganapathi S/O Manjappa @ ... on 21 February, 2022
Bench: P.Krishna Bhat
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6746 OF 2011 (MV)
BETWEEN:
DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
B.H. ROAD, A.A. CIRCLE,
SHIMOGA-577 201.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI A. N. KRISHNA SWAMY, ADV.)
AND:
1. GANAPATHI
S/O. MANJAPPA @ MANJANAIKA,
NOW AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
RESIDENT OF SHETTIKERE VILLAGE,
CHORADI POST,
SHIMOGA TALUK.
2. NAGARAJA
S/O. NAGAPPA,
NOW AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
OCC: DRIVER OF TILLER,
RESIDENT OF RECHIKOPPA,
KUMSI POST,
SHIMOGA TALUK.
2
3. MANJANAIKA
S/O. NAGANAIKA,
NOW AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
OCC: OWNER OF TILLER,
RESIDENT OF SHETTIKERE VILLAGE,
CHORADI POST,
SHIMOGA TALUK
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.S. ANANDA, ADV., FOR R-1, &
R-2 AND 3 ARE SERVED)
***
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11-4-2011 PASSED IN M.V.C.
NO.1052 OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE,
ADDITIONAL MACT-II, I FAST TRACK COURT, SHIMOGA,
AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.2,98,477/- WITH INTEREST
@ 6% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL PAYMENT
EXCEPT ON FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES OF RS.25,000/-.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is at the instance of the Insurance
Company calling in question the correctness of the
judgment and award dated 11-4-2011 in M.V.C. No.1052
of 2009 passed by the District Judge, Additional Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal-II, I Fast Track Court, Shimoga.
2. Claim petition proceeded on the allegation that
on 25-3-2009 at 6:30 p.m., while the claimant was
proceeding near Shettikere Village, the Driver of the
vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-14 TA-448-49 came in
a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the
claimant resulting in grievous injuries to him.
3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2-Driver and owner of the
offending vehicle respectfully filed their written statements
denying the material averments made in the claim petition
and they set up a case of negligence of the claimant for the
accident. The appellant-Insurance Company filed its
separate written statement denying the material
averments made in the claim petition.
4. During trial, the claimant examined himself as
P.W.1, an eyewitness was examined as P.W.2 and Exs.P.1
to P.387 were marked. Insurance Company examined
one of its officials as R.W.1 and Exs.R.1 to R.3 were
marked.
5. After hearing the learned counsel on both sides
and perusing the records, the Tribunal awarded
compensation of Rs.2,98,477/- with interest thereon at
6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of
payment.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance
Company vehemently contended that the Tribunal has
failed to appreciate the evidence in a proper manner and it
has therefore come to a wrong conclusion. He contended
that P.W.1, who is cross-examined in this case, has
admitted that history regarding the accident given by his
elder brother before the Doctor in the Hospital was with
full information and it is correct and the said history was
to the effect that the claimant had suffered injuries due to
fall from the vehicle. He submitted that in spite of the
same, the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the
accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent
driving of the Driver of the offending vehicle, which is
unsustainable. He, therefore, submits that the impugned
judgment and award is liable to be aside and the appeal
requires to be allowed.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent-claimant has
remained absent.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides
and perused the records.
9. The case of the claimant before the Tribunal was
to the effect that on 25-3-2009 at 6:30 p.m., while the
claimant was proceeding near Shettikere Village, the
Driver of the vehicle bearing Registration
No.KA-14 TA-448-49 came in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed against him resulting in grievous
injuries. The claimant has examined himself in support of
his case and he has also examined one eyewitness-Sri
A.M. Nagaraja. He has further produced Ex.P.3-complaint,
Ex.P.6-charge-sheet, and Ex.R.3-summary sheet which
shows that the Driver of the offending vehicle had pleaded
guilty before the Tribunal. Charge-sheet is also against
the said Driver. Contention of the learned counsel of the
appellant is that P.W.1, who is the claimant had admitted
during cross-examination that history of the injuries given
by his brother before the Doctor in K.M.C. Hospital was to
the effect that he suffered injuries due to fall from the
vehicle and since P.W.1 has admitted the same as correct,
it was on account of his own negligence that the claimant
had suffered injuries. However, perusal of the cross-
examination of P.W.1 shows that learned counsel for the
appellant-Insurance Company has elicited the following
from him by putting suggestions and questions. The
same reads as follows:
"xxx xxx ¸ÀzÀj C¥ÀWÁvÀ £À£Àß C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄzÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ
¸ÁAiÀÄAPÁ® 6 UÀAmÉUÉ DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ, ¥ÀªÀgï nîgï£À°è w¥ÉàUÉƧâgÀ
EvÀÄÛ, ¥ÀªÀgï nîgï ±À§Þ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛ §gÀÄwÛvÀÄÛ £Á£ÀÄ »A¢gÀÄV
¥ÀªÀgï nîgï ºÉÆÃUÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃrzÉÝãÉ, ¥ÀªÀgï nîgï
»A¢¤AzÀ §AzÀÄ vÉÆqÉUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÉÊUÉ ºÉÆqɬÄvÀÄ, ¥ÀªÀgï
nîgï wgÀÄVvÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è £À£ÀߣÀÄß zÀ©âPÉÆAqÀÄ
ªÀÄÄAzÉ ºÉÆìÄvÀÄ. xxx xxx."
This shows that cross-examination for the Insurance
Company is to the effect that the when the power-tiller
was carrying the manure, the claimant saw the power-
tiller coming and the power-tiller hit him from behind and
he suffered injuries on his thigh and on his hand.
However, no doubt, he has denied the said suggestion.
This clearly shows that the Insurance Company did not
dispute the accident which is only by power-tiller dashing
against the claimant, but it only had another version
regarding the manner of the accident. Further, the
claimant has examined an eyewitness-P.W.2. He has
stated that the accident occurred on account of rash and
negligent driving of the power-tiller in question by its
Driver and the power-tiller dashed against the claimant.
However, there is no effective cross-examination to this
witness, i.e. P.W.2, on the material aspect, namely that
accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent
driving of the offending vehicle by its Driver.
10. In that view of the matter, much importance
cannot be place to the entry in the medical records
regarding history said to have been given by the brother of
the claimant. The Tribunal upon consideration of the
material, recorded a finding that the accident had taken
place on account of rash and negligent driving of the
offending vehicle, which is supported by the evidence of
eyewitness. The finding recorded by the Tribunal is based
on evidence, and therefore, I am not inclined to interfere
with the same.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The amount
in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal along with
its records, forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
kvk
