Karnataka High Court
The National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Shri. Sidrai Rudrappa Pujeri on 8 June, 2022
Bench: P.Krishna Bhat
-1-
MFA No. 22770 of 2010
C/W MFA No. 24824 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.KRISHNA BHAT
MFA NO. 22770 OF 2010 (MV-I)
C/W
MFA NO. 24824 OF 2010 (MV-I)
IN MFA NO.22770/2010
BETWEEN:
SHRI. SIDRAI RUDRAPPA PUJERI
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: MASON R/O MUCHANDI
BELGAUM
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANJAY S KATAGERI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI. PRAVEEN R. PAWASHE,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS IN GRAINS R/O
4449/4450/B, MAHADWAR ROAD, BELGAUM
2. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, 1732, 1ST FLOOR, RAMDEV
GALLI, BELGAUM REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N R KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
(R1-NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT)
JAGADISH
TR THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 PRAYING THAT JUDGMENT AND
Digitally signed
by JAGADISH T R
Location: HIGH
AWARD DATED 1.4.2010 IN MVC NO.992/2007 PASSED BY THE
COURT OF
KARNATAKA, LEARNED PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-IV AND
DHARWAD
-2-
MFA No. 22770 of 2010
C/W MFA No. 24824 of 2010
MACT, BELGAUM IN AWARDING RS.96,000/- BE KINDLY
MODIFIED BY ENHANCING TO RS.5,00,000/- @ 10% PER
ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF PETITION, TILL DATE OF
PAYMENT, IN THE INTEREST JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN MFA NO.24824/2010
BETWEEN:
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, 1732, 1ST FLOOR,
RAMADEV GALLI, BELGAUM REP. BY ITS
DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NOW REP. BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICE A.P. KULKARNI, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, BELGAUM.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SHRI. SIDRAI RUDRAPPA PUJERI
AGE:31 YEARS, OCC:MASON,
R/O MUCHANDI, DIST:BELGAUM.
2. PRAVEEN R PAWASHE
AGE:MAJOR, OCC:NOT MENTIONED
R/O 4449/4450/B, MAHADWAR ROAD, BELGAUM
...RESPONDENTS
(R1 & R2-SERVED)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING THAT THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FTC-IV AND
MACT, BELGAUM IN MVC NO.992/2007 DATED 1.4.2010
AWARDING TOTAL COMPENSATION OF RS.96,000/- WITH
INTEREST AND AS SUCH SAME IS THE VALUATION FOR
JURISDICTION AND PAYMENT OF COURT FEES.
-3-
MFA No. 22770 of 2010
C/W MFA No. 24824 of 2010
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
These appeals are at the instance of the claimant and
the Insurance Company calling in question the judgment
and award dated 1.4.2010 passed in MVC No.992/2007 by
the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-IV and
MACT, Belgaum (for short, 'MACT'), awarding
compensation of Rs.96,000/- with interest thereon at 6%
per annum. While the claimant seeks enhancement of
compensation awarded, the Insurance Company contends
that the accident alleged is a false one and therefore, the
Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation.
2. As per the claim petition, brief facts are that on
14.10.2006 at about 5 p.m., while the claimant was
waiting for Bus in Honaga bus-stand, motor cycle bearing
registration No.KA-22/X-5240 came in a rash and
negligent manner in high speed and dashed against the
claimant, resulting in serious injuries to him.
MFA No. 22770 of 2010
C/W MFA No. 24824 of 2010
3. On the claimant filing claim petition, owner of
the offending vehicle remained absent and the Insurance
Company contested the proceedings by filing its detailed
statement of objections.
4. During the trial, the claimant examined himself
as PW1 and one doctor was examined as PW2 and he also
examined another witness as PW3 and Exs.P1 to P10 were
marked. The respondents did not examine any witness but
Ex.R1-B Summary report and Ex.R2-Insurance Policy were
marked.
5. After hearing the learned counsel on both sides
and perusing the material on record, the learned MACT
allowed the claim petition in part awarding compensation
of Rs.96,000/- with interest thereon at 6% per annum
from the date of petition till the date of realization.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant
contended that the learned MACT has awarded lower
compensation by deducting 50% of the income of the
claimant for calculating the loss of earning capacity and
MFA No. 22770 of 2010
C/W MFA No. 24824 of 2010
therefore, appeal filed by the claimant is required to be
allowed and compensation awarded is required to be
enhanced.
7. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company in
support of his appeal strongly contended that the entire
case projected by the claimant was a false one, and in
fact, no such accident had taken place. He submits that
the complaint regarding the accident in question was
lodged by the claimant after nearly three months of the
alleged incident. He further submits that the claimant
while deposing as PW1 has admitted that the history given
in the Civil Hospital, Belgaum was one of 'fall from the roof
of the house'. He further submitted that Ex.R1 was B-
summary report filed by the Police after investigation to
the effect that it was a false case. Therefore, he submits
that appeal filed by him requires to be allowed and claim
petition deserves to be dismissed.
MFA No. 22770 of 2010
C/W MFA No. 24824 of 2010
8. I have given my careful consideration to the
submissions made on both sides and I have perused the
original records.
9. The claim petition was filed by the claimant
alleging that on 14.10.2006, while he was standing near
Honaga bus-stand, at about 5 p.m., rider of the offending
motorcycle drove the same in a rash and negligent
manner in high speed and dashed against him resulting in
grievous injuries to him. As per Wound Certificate-Ex.P8
produced by him, he had suffered fracture of patella.
However, records show that the police complaint regarding
the accident lodged only on 12.1.2007, which is nearly
three monthly after the accident. PW1 who is the
claimant/complainant has admitted during his cross-
examination that history of the injury was given before
Civil Hospital, Belgaum as "fall from roof of the house".
Further, Ex.R1 is the final report submitted by the police
after investigation into the complaint Ex.P1. As per the
same, the Investigating Officer had come to the conclusion
MFA No. 22770 of 2010
C/W MFA No. 24824 of 2010
that no such accident as alleged by the claimant had
occurred and it was a false complaint.
10. From the above conspectus of facts and
evidence, the only inference that can be drawn is that the
case projected by the claimant is a false one and
therefore, claim petition deserves to be dismissed.
11. In view of the above, appeal in MFA
No.22770/2010 filed by the claimant is dismissed and the
appeal in MFA No.24824/2010 filed by the insurance
company is allowed. The claim petition filed by the
claimant is rejected. The amount in deposit shall be
refunded to the Insurance Company forthwith. Return the
records to the learned MACT.
Pending applications, if any, do not survive for
consideration and accordingly, they are disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE
JTR
