Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Anjenappa on 6 June, 2022
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
M.F.A.NO.6595/2012 CW
M.F.A.NO.6597/2012 (MV-I)
IN MFA NO.6595/2012
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
CHIGATERI MERCANTILE BUILDING,
CHAMARAJAPET,
DAVANAGERE,
BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.144,
SHUBHA RAM COMPLEX,
M.G.ROAD,
BANGALORE,
BY ITS MANAGER.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI S.V.HEGDE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE,
APPEARING THROUGH V/C)
AND:
1. R. CHANDRAPPA,
S/O N.RAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
LINEMAN, BESCOM,
HOSADURGA TOWN,
2. M.C. VEENA,
D/O R. CHANDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
2ND PUC STUDENT,
2
3. M.C. CHITRA,
D/O R. CHANDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS,
1ST PUC STUDENT.
4. M.C. ROOPA,
D/O R. CHANDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS,
5TH STD. STUDENT
RESPONDENTS 3 & 4 ARE MINORS,
REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL
GUARDIAN, FATHER RESPONDENT NO.1
5. K.M.SHEKHARAPPA,
S/O MAHALINGAPPA,
MAJOR, R/O KARTHIKERE VILLAGE,
KANGUVALLI POST,
HOSADURGA TALUK,
OWNER OF MOTOR CYCLE BEARING,
REGN. NO.KA-16-U-886.
6. ANNAPPA SWAMI,
S/O K.B. RAMESHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
R/O KANGUVALLI VILLAGE,
HOSDURGA TALUK.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SHRUTI PHONDE, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.H.KANTHARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R1,
R2 & R6-SERVED,
R3 & R4 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R1,
SRI. H. LAKSHMINARAYAN, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
27.03.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.372/2010 ON THE FILE OF
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT,
HOLALKERE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF
3
Rs.5,78,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE
OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION AND ETC.,
IN MFA NO.6597/2012
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
CHIGATERI MERCANTILE BUILDING,
CHAMARAJAPET,
DAVANAGERE,
BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.144,
SHUBHA RAM COMPLEX,
M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE,
BY ITS MANAGER.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.V. HEGDE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ANJENAPPA,
S/O BASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
L.P.S. TEACHER,
SIDDAPPANAHATTY VILLLAGE,
HOSADURGA TALUK,
R/O M.G. DIBBA VILLAGE,
HOSADURGA TALUK,
NOW R/O DUMMI VILLAGE,
HOLALKERE TALUK.
2. K.M. SHEKHARAPPA,
S/O MAHALINGAPPA,
MAJOR, R/O KARTHIKERE VILLAGE,
KANGUVALLI POST,
HOSADURGA TALUK,
OWNER OF MOTOR CYCLE BEARING
REGN. NO.KA-16-U-886.
4
3. ANNAPPA SWAMI,
S/O K.B. RAMESHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
R/O KANGUVALLI VILLAGE,
HOSADURGA TALUK.
...RESPONDENTS
(R1, R2 & R3-ARE SERVED)
THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
27.03.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.374/2010 ON THE FILE OF
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT,
HOLALKERE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF
Rs.29,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE
OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION AND ETC.,
THESE M.F.As. COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
These appeals are filed under Section-173(1), of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'MV
Act' for brevity).
2. MFA No.6595/2012 is filed by the appellant -
insurance company, challenging the judgment and award
dated 27.03.2012, passed in MVC No.372/2010, on the file
of Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, at Holalkere
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for brevity).
3. MFA No.6597/2012 is filed by the appellant -
insurance company, challenging the judgment and award
dated 27.03.2012, passed in MVC No.374/2010, on the file
of Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, at Holalkere
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for brevity).
Brief facts:
4. On 16.04.2010, at about 11.00 a.m., when the
claimants-respondents were riding the motor cycle bearing
registration No.KA-16-668, from M.G. Dibba to
Kurubarahally Village, taking the claimant in MVC
372/2010, as a pillion rider near his land at Kanguvalli -
M.G. Dibba road at Hosadurga Taluk, the rider of the
motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-16-886 rode the
same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the
motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-16-668 and to the
pedestrian i.e., deceased Meenakshamma in MVC
No.372/2010, due to which the claimant in MVC
No.373/2010 and 374/2010, have sustained injuries and
have suffered pain and agony. The deceased
Meenakshamma in MVC No.372/2010, had succumbed to
the injuries. The petitioners in MVC No.372/2011 are the
legal heirs of the deceased.
3. Hence, a claim petition was filed by the
claimants under Section-166 of the M.V. Act, claiming
compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident.
The Tribunal on appreciating the materials on record,
allowed the petition in MVC No.374/2010 in part, and
awarded compensation of Rs.29,000/- along with interest
at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of
deposit. The Tribunal held the appellant - insurance
company, liable to pay the compensation.
4. Further, the Tribunal on appreciating the
materials on record, allowed the petition in MVC
No.372/2010 in part, and awarded a compensation of
Rs.5,78,000/- along with interest at 6% per annum, from
the date of petition till the date of deposit. The Tribunal
held the appellant - insurance company, liable to pay the
compensation.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant -
insurance company submitted that in the complaint and
FIR, it is stated that one person by name Sri.Shekarappa
was riding the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-16-
U-886 and caused the accident and therefore his name
was shown as against the offending vehicle. But while filing
the charge-sheet, the name of the accused was changed
showing there upon that one Sri.A.B.Ramesh was riding
the offending Motor Cycle bearing registration No. KA-16-
U-886. Therefore, submitted that there is a fraud played
while changing the name of the accused and due to this
fact, perhaps Sri.Shekarappa did not have driving licence.
Therefore, in order to escape from the liability,
subsequently the name of the rider was changed.
Therefore, submitted in this regard fraud is played just to
make the insurance company to pay the compensation.
Therefore, on this ground submitted that the insurance
company is not liable to pay the compensation.
6. Further, submitted that after 40 days from the
date of the accident both the vehicles have been examined
by the Motor Vehicle Inspector and Inspection Report is
prepared, which is not correct. Further, submitted there is
no physical damage to the vehicle. Therefore, questioned
the factum of accident itself. Therefore, prayed for allowing
the appeal and setting-aside the judgment and award of
the Tribunal.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that claimants are third
parties and during the course of investigation, the
Investigating Officer had found that one Sri.A.B.Ramesh
was riding the offending Motor cycle KA-16-U-886.
Therefore, the said rider of the offending vehicle was
holding driving licence at the time of accident and also the
Driving License was much in force. Therefore, the
appellant - insurance company is liable to pay the
compensation to the appellant.
8. Further, submitted that the complainant had
stated the name of Somashekar as the rider of the
offending motor cycle and thereafter stated as
Sri.M.B.Ramesh. Therefore, this is nothing but a natural
circumstance, which occurs in most of the cases while
mentioning the name of the rider/driver of the offending
vehicle.
9. During the course of the investigation, the
Investigating Officer i.e., Police Inspector, Hosadurga
Police Station was examined as RW-2, but he has
specifically deposed that one Sri.M.B.Ramesh was riding
the offending motor cycle and after conducting proper
investigation, he has submitted the charge-sheet against
Sri.M.B.Ramesh. According to RW-1, the Investigating
Officer of Respondent No.2 - Insurance Company has
investigated about the incident and became aware that,
three persons were traveling in the motorcycle and Sri.
M.B.Ramesh was the rider of the offending vehicle.
Therefore, submitted that there is no ground for the
appellant - insurance company to make submission and
prays for dismissal of the appeal.
10. It is true that in the FIR, the complainant has
mentioned the name of one Shekarappa, but later the
name was changed. According to the learned counsel for
the appellant - insurance company, the name is changed
to claim liability from the insurance company. At the time
of investigation, the truth was revealed that one
Sri.A.B.Ramesh was riding the offending motor cycle
bearing No.KA-16-U-886. It is pertinent to mention that
the Investigation to be conducted by the Police Officer is
statutory investigation as recognized in Cr.P.C. and the
Investigating Officer is statutorily empowered to make
investigation of crime and file a final report. Upon
considering the complaint averments that the name of one
Shekarappa was mentioned, it is stated in the very
complaint that the rider of the offending motor cycle ran
away from the spot of accident. Therefore, the
complainant came to know the name of the rider from
other persons. If the rider of the offending motor cycle was
found in the spot of the accident, then the correct name of
the rider of the offending vehicle could have been
gathered. But as per complaint averments, the rider of the
offending Motor Cycle ran away from the spot after the
accident. Thereafter, during the course of investigation as
discussed above RW-2, Investigating Officer filed charge-
sheet against Sri.A.B.Ramesh.
11. Further, the evidence of the appellant-
insurance company are to be considered. Exhibit-R6 is the
report of insurance company - Investigator, who is
appointed by the appellant-insurance company to
investigate into the case. Even though it is the internal
affairs of the insurance company to appoint its own
Investigator, after the accident, but the report is produced
by the insurance company only. Therefore, it has to be
relied on while appreciating the evidence to ascertain who
was the rider of the Motor Cycle bearing registration KA-
16-U-886 at the time of the accident.
12. In Exhibit-P6, the Investigator had reported
that initially one Shekarappa, S/o. Mahalingappa, was
owner of the motor cycle bearing number KA-16-U-886,
and respondent No.3, Annappa Swami had purchased the
said motor cycle in the month of February'2010. Further,
reported that upon making enquiry with the Annappa
Swami, he had stated that he purchased motor cycle
bearing number KA-16-U-886 and on 16.04.2010, his
friend one A.B.Ramesh has taken the motorcycle and
caused the accident. This report made by the Investigating
Officer of the insurance company stating that the first
respondent had sold the vehicle much prior to the accident
to respondent No.3. As per the report, one
Sri.A.B.Ramesh, has taken offending Motor Cycle bearing
registration No. KA-16-U-886 and caused the accident.
Even though the investigator was not examined but the
said report at Exhibit-R6 is produced by the Insurance
Company itself. Considering all these preponderance of
probabilities involved in the case, it is proved that one
Sri.A.B.Ramesh was riding the Motor Cycle bearing
registration KA-16-U-886.
13. Under these circumstances, there may be
some difference in the communication either number of
the vehicle or name of the driver / rider of the offending
vehicle. Therefore, just because, the name of the rider is
altered that cannot be always considered as fraud is played
in the case. As observed above, RW-2 had deposed during
the course of investigation and revealed the name as
Sri.A.B. Ramesh who was riding the Motor Cycle bearing
registration No. KA-16-U-886. Further, from the evidence
produced the insurance company report as per Exhibit-R6,
it is revealed that the third respondent had purchased the
motor cycle in the month of February'2010 and thereafter
the accident was caused. Therefore, at the time of accident
one Annappa Swami, the third respondent herein was the
owner and it is further revealed that at the time of the
accident, Sri.A.B. Ramesh was riding the motor cycle and
caused the accident. Therefore, from the evidence of the
insurance company itself it is proved that one Sri.A.B.
Ramesh was riding the offending Motor Cycle bearing
registration No. KA-16-U-886. Therefore, I do not find that
any fraud is played in this case while mentioning the name
of the accused.
14. Just because, respondent No.3 was examined
and did not say that A.B. Ramesh was riding the motor
cycle and caused the accident that cannot be made fatal to
say that A.B. Ramesh was not riding the motor cycle.
Further, even though in Exhibit-P12 inquest report the
statement is said to have been given by the brother of the
deceased that one Shekerappa was riding the motor cycle
but based on the complaint and FIR the inquest report was
prepared soon after lodging the complaint and receiving
the FIR. Therefore, based on the FIR he might have stated
the name of Shekarappa that said investigation was not
completed and further investigation is to be carried out.
Further, during investigation it is revealed that A.B.
Ramesh is the rider of the motor cycle. This is not only the
one circumstance that A.B. Ramesh was only riding the
motor cycle and caused the accident but also it is fortified
by Exhibit-R6, report of the investigator of the insurance
company and in the said report it is revealed that as per
enquiry in the investigation that one A.B.Ramesh was
riding the offending motor cycle and caused the accident.
Therefore, I do not find any merit in the appeal.
15. Further, it is not disputed that one
Sri.A.B.Ramesh was holding valid and effective Driving
Licence and Insurance Policy was in existence as on the
date and therefore the Tribunal has correctly held that
respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to
pay the compensation and it is the responsibility of the
insurance company to satisfy the award. Therefore, I do
not find any perversity or illegality in the approach of the
Tribunal while coming to the conclusion and passing the
judgment and awarding compensation. Therefore, there is
no merit found in the appeal. Hence, the appeals are liable
to be dismissed.
16. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The appeals are hereby dismissed.
ii. The common judgment and award the judgment
and award dated 27.03.2012, passed in MVC
No.372/2010 and connected matters, on the file
of Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, at Holalkere
is hereby confirmed.
iii. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the
Tribunal along with the TCR along with the copy
of the order forthwith.
iv. I.A.No.2/2012 in MFA No.6587/2012, does not
survive for consideration and accordingly
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
JJ
