Karnataka High Court
The Branch Manager,National ... vs Maltesh S/O Ningappa Soppin on 27 June, 2022
Bench: P.Krishna Bhat
-1-
MFA No. 22759 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.KRISHNA BHAT
MFA NO. 22759 OF 2010 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
KAIKINI ROAD KARAWAR,
THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
SUJATA COMPLEX, OPP. TO GLASS HOUSE, HUBLI,
NOW REP. BY ITS ADMNISTRATIVE OFFICER,
MISS RENUKA D/O.YALLAPPA RANEBENNUR,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, HUBLI.
... APPELLANT
(BY SHRI N.R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI MALTESH S/O.NINGAPPA SOPPIN,
AGE 41 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: HANAGAL, NOW AT,C/O: JAIPRAKASH HARAVI,
SAIDAPUR, DHARAWAD.
Digitally signed
by ROHAN
HADIMANI T
ROHAN Location:
HADIMANI DHARWAD
T Date:
2022.06.28
09:56:39
+0530
-2-
MFA No. 22759 of 2010
2. SHRI ASHOK D.NAGOJI,
AGE MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF TRACTOR & TRAILER, R/O:
KOPPARASIKOPPA, TALUK: HANAGAL,
DIST: HAVERI.
3. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
UNITED INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
HAVERI BRANCH, HAVERI,
THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
ENKAY COMPLEX, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI.
4. NAGESH S/O.SHIVARUDRAPPA PADEPPANAVAR,
AGE MAJOR, OCC: TEACHER,
MALINADUHIGH SCHOOL, DASANKOPPA,
TALUK: SIRSI, DIST: KARWAR.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PRAVEEN P.TARIKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SHRI C.V. ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
RESPONDENT NO.1 - SERVED;
NOTICE TO R4 HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR
VEHICLE ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
21-04-2010 PASSED IN MVC NO.841/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE
FAST TRACK NO.I, DHARWAD, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF
RS.49,347/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE
DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF ITS DEPOSIT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING.
-3-
MFA No. 22759 of 2010
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is at the instance of the Insurance
Company of the offending tractor & trailer calling in question
the Judgment & Award dated 21.04.2010 in MVC
No.841/2004 by the learned Court of Fast Track No.1,
Dharwad.
2. Brief facts are to the effect that on 12.03.2004,
while the claimant/respondent No.1 was proceeding on a
motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-31/J-74912 as a pillion
rider with one Sanjay Bedre as rider near Kamanalli Cross on
Hangal - Mantagi Road at about 9:00 a.m. the offending
tractor & trailer bearing Registration Nos. KA-27/T-4697 &
KA-27/T-4698 driven by its driver in a rash & negligent
manner and in high speed dashed against the motorcycle,
resulting in grievous injuries to the claimant/respondent No.1
herein.
3. On the claim petition being filed, the present
appellant contested the proceedings by filing its separate
written statement. The owner of the tractor & trailer filed his
MFA No. 22759 of 2010
written statement, but he did not cross-examine the
witnesses.
4. During the trial, the claimant examined himself as
PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P14. The appellant Insurance
Company examined one of its Officials as RW1 and got
marked Exs.R1 to R3.
5. After hearing the learned counsel on both sides
and perusing the records, the learned Tribunal allowed the
claim petition-in-part awarding a compensation of Rs.49,347/-
with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till
the date of payment.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurer of the
offending tractor & trailer contended before me that the
finding of the learned Tribunal on the question of negligence
is against the weight of the evidence and therefore it is liable
to be set aside. He further submitted that the tractor & trailer
was not at all involved in the accident and without
appreciating the evidence in proper perspective, the learned
Tribunal has given an erroneous finding. In this connection,
MFA No. 22759 of 2010
the learned counsel submits that when the complaint was
lodged by the rider of the vehicle, the registration number of
the offending tractor & trailer was not furnished, but the
number of some other vehicle was given and subsequently,
the number of the offending vehicle was introduced by way of
further statement and the insured vehicle was involved in the
accident. He therefore submits that the finding of the learned
Tribunal is liable to be set aside and the appeal is entitled to
be allowed.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
respondents contend that the learned Tribunal after
appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case has
given a finding of fact that the accident took place on account
of rash & negligent driving by the driver of the offending
tractor & trailer and therefore such finding of fact should not
be lightly set aside. He therefore contended that the appeal is
liable to dismissed and the judgment & award of the learned
Tribunal is liable to be up held.
MFA No. 22759 of 2010
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made on both sides and I have carefully perused
the records.
9. The case of the claimant before the learned
Tribunal proceeded on the allegation that on 12.03.2004 at
about 9:00 a.m., when the rider Sanjay Bedre was riding the
motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-31/J-7492 in a careful
manner near Kamanalli Cross at Hangal - Mantagi Road, the
offending tractor & trailer bearing registration Nos.KA-27/t-
4697 & KA-27/T-4698 driven by its driver in a rash &
negligent manner in a high speed, dashed against the
motorcycle, resulting in grievous injuries to the present
claimant/respondent No.1 in the appeal.
10. The claimant has examined himself as PW1 and
spoken cogently about the manner of the occurrence of the
accident and the only cross-examination put to him is that in
the first instance when the complaint was lodged by the
driver, the registration number of the vehicle given was
something other than the registration number of the offending
vehicle and therefore, the offending vehicle has been falsely
MFA No. 22759 of 2010
implicated. In this behalf only a suggestion is put to PW1. The
learned Tribunal has noted that during the evidence, charge
sheet filed by the police after investigation was exhibited at
Ex.P4 and that shows the driver of the offending tractor &
trailer was charge sheeted for the offences punishable under
Sections 279 & 338 of the IPC. The Insurance Company has
not chosen to examine the driver of the offending tractor &
trailer before the learned Tribunal. In that view of the matter,
there is no good reason to interfere with the finding of the
learned Tribunal on the aspect of the negligence on the part
of the driver of the offending tractor & trailer. Accordingly,
there is no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the
learned Tribunal forthwith along with TCR. The balance
amount of compensation shall be deposited before the learned
Tribunal within six weeks from today for disbursement to the
claimant.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Vnp*
