Karnataka High Court
The Royal Sundaram Alliance ... vs Athar Khan S/O Abdul Rahmankhan ... on 21 January, 2022
Bench: S G Pandit, Anant Ramanath Hegde
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST OF JANUARY 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
M.F.A.NO.100766 OF 2015 (MV)
C/W
M.F.A.NO.102451 OF 2017 (MV)
IN M.F.A.NO.100766 OF 2015 (MV)
BETWEEN
THE ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
2ND FLOOR, NO.3, KHADDAR NAWAZ KHAN ROAD,
NUNGAMBAKKAM CHENNAI STATE,
PRESENT ADDRESS: SUBRAMANIAM BUILDING,
11 FLOOR, NO.1 CLUB HOUSE, ANNASALAI, CHENNAI - 600 002
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI RAVI G. SABHAHIT, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. ATHAR KHAN S/O ABDUL RAHMANKHAN KITTUR,
AGED 47 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O: BAAD, POST: SALIKINKAPPA,
DHARWAD.
2
2. M/S JAYPEE ROADWAYS (MADRAS) F-202,
AATHMIYA, COMPLEX, NEAR MANEJA CROSSING,
MAKAPUR, VADUDARA, VADODARA,
GUJARAT STATE
(OWNER OF THE VEHICLE NO.GJ-6-XX-6581).
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE FOR R1
NOTICE FOR R2 SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.12.2014
PASSED IN MVC NO.349/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE FAST TRACK
COURT AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
DHARWAD, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.6,22,969/-,
ALONG WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE
OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
IN M.F.A.NO.102451 OF 2017
BETWEEN
ATHARKHAN S/O ABDUL RAHMANKHAN KITTUR,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O: BAAD, POST SALIKINKOPPA DHARWAD,
DIST: DHARWAD - 580 001
(ORI CLAIMANT).
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE)
AND
3
1. M/S JAYPEE ROADWAYS (MADRAS) F-202
AATHMIYA COMPLEX NEAR MANEJA CROSSING
MAKAPURA VADUDARA (VADODARA)
GUJARAT STATE,
(OWNER OF THE VEHICLE NO.GJ-6XX-6581).
2. THE ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
2ND FLOOR, NO.3 KHADAR - NAWAZ KHAN ROAD,
NUNGAMBAKKAM,
CHENNAI STATE - 600 006,
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI,
HUBLI (POLICY NO.VOC0066395000100)
(ORI RESPONDENTS)
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAVI G. SABHAHIT, ADVOCATE FOR R2,
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 24.12.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.349/2011 ON THE FILE OF
THE FAST TRACK AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THESE MFA's COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE, J DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
4
COMMON JUDGMENT
These two appeals are arising out of judgment and award
passed in MVC No.349/2011 on the file of Fast Track Court
Additional M.A.C.T., Dharwad. In the said proceedings the
Tribunal adjudicated the claim under Section 166 of Motor
Vehicle Act arising out of an accident which occurred on
05.01.2011 near Konganhalli involving vehicle bearing
No.MH12/CPO-574 and Lorry vehicle bearing No.GJ-6/XX/6581
and allowed the claim petition awarding compensation of
Rs.6,22,969.00. The claimant being aggrieved by the said
compensation has preferred MFA No.102451/2017 and the
insurer being aggrieved by liability imposed on it has preferred
MFA No.100766/2015. The insurer has taken a stand that the
claimant himself being responsible for the accident is not entitled
to any compensation.
2. Since, both the appeals are arising out of the same
judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, learned counsel
appearing for parties in both the appeals are heard and both the
cases are taken up for hearing.
5
3. It is also forthcoming from the record that the
claimant/appellant in MFA No.102451/2017 has filed an
application seeking the production of 27 documents and
additional documents. In this behalf, the learned counsel for the
claimant/appellant would submit that these documents are the
documents pertaining to medical expenditure incurred by the
claimant after the disposal of the claim petition.
4. Referring to these documents the learned counsel
would submit that the medical expenditure referring to the
additional documents are incurred by the appellant in respect of
injuries sustained by him in the accident in question.
5. The learned counsel for the insurer in support of his
appeal would submit that the Tribunal has erred in not noticing
the fact that the claimant himself is responsible for the accident.
According to learned counsel for the appellant-insurer, the
charge sheet is filed against the claimant himself and the
Tribunal erred in ignoring the charge sheet filed by the police
wherein the claimant himself is found negligent after the
investigation.
6
6. We have considered the contentions of respective
parties and perused the records placed for the Court.
7. It is noticed that the charge sheet produced by the
claimant as well as the respondent does not disclose the sketch
of the spot where the accident took place. On perusal of Ex.R-3,
it is noticed that it does not contain the entire charge sheet as
submitted. Said document at Ex.R3 contains only 3 pages of the
charge sheet. Considering the fact there is a serious dispute
relating to the negligence of the person responsible for the
accident and also considering the fact that the application is filed
for production of additional documents, it is appropriate to remit
back the matter to the Tribunal to consider the case afresh by
considering the additional documents produced by the
claimant/appellant. This Court also directs the petitioner as well
as an insurer to produce the complete charge sheet along with
the sketch prepared by the police depicting the place of
occurrence of the accident.
7
8. Accordingly, to the judgment and award passed by
the Tribunal in MVC No.349/2011 dated 24.12.2014 on the file of
Fast Track Court and Additional MACT, Dharwad is set aside.
9. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh
consideration in accordance with the law.
10. The registry is directed to return the original
documents to the claimant/appellant to enable him to produce
the same before the claims Tribunal, Belagavi.
11. Though the production of documents is allowed, no
findings are given on the admissibility or genuineness of the said
documents. The Tribunal shall consider the admissibility,
relevancy and genuineness of the said documents by law.
12. Hence, the following,
ORDER
a. The MFA No.102451/2017 and
CROB.100766/2015 are allowed in part.
Judgment and award dated 24.12.2014 passed
in MVC No.349/2011 on the file of Fast Track
Court and MACT, Dharwad is set aside and the
matter is remitted back to the Principal District
and Sessions Judge, and MACT, Dharwad to
consider the matter afresh as observed above.
b. Parties are directed to appear before the
Principal District and Sessions Judge and
MACT, Dharwad on 15.02.2022 at 11.00 a.m
without notice of the Court.
Registry to send back the records to the Tribunal.
Amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal and
the same shall be kept in fixed deposit till the disposal of the
case.
SD/-
JUDGE
SD/-
JUDGE
SSP
