Karnataka High Court
M/S Shriram General Insurance ... vs Master Manjunatha K on 5 September, 2022
Bench: N S Gowda
-1-
MFA No. 479 of 2021
C/W MFA No.492 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 479 OF 2021 (MV-I)
C/w.
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 492 OF 2021 (MV-I)
In MFA No.479/2021:
BETWEEN:
M/S SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMAPNY LTD
THE BRANCH MANAGER,
REGIONAL OFFICE NO 89, 2ND FLOOR,
HVR COMPLEX, HOSUR ROAD, MADIVALA,
BANGALORE.
NOW REP.
M/S SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,
MOTOR CLAIMS HUB,
NO 5/4, 3RD FLOOR, S.V. ARCADE,
BILAKAHALLI, BANNERUGHATTA MAIN ROAD,
IIMB POST,
BANGALORE,
REPTD BY ITS ASST. MANAGER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B.C. SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by
KIRAN AND:
KUMAR R
Location: 1. KESHAVAMURTHY H.L.
High Court S/O LAKSHMAN H.T.
of Karnataka
-2-
MFA No. 479 of 2021
C/W MFA No.492 of 2021
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
R/AT HURALIBORASANDRA VILLAGE,
GOWDAGERE POST, KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMAKUR DISTRICT.
2. MUBARAK PASHA
S/O MOHAMMED ATHER ANEES,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/AT ELN 219, NEAR CANARA BANK ROAD,
KUNIGAL TOWN, KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMAKUR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.LOHIT KUMAR G., FOR
SRI.G.H.CHANNA GANGAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R1
R2 IS SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.03.2020
PASSED IN MVC NO.5308/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER,
MACT, XVIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU CITY (SCCH-4), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
Rs.5,48,000/- WITH INTEREST AT SIX PERCENT PER ANNUM
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION.
In MFA No.492/2021:
BETWEEN:
M/S SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMAPNY LTD
THE BRANCH MANAGER
M/S SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,
REGIONAL OFFICE, NO 89, 2ND FLOOR,
HVR COMPLEX, HOSUR ROAD, MADIVALA,
BANGALORE.
NOW REP.
M/S SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,
-3-
MFA No. 479 of 2021
C/W MFA No.492 of 2021
MOTOR CLAIMS HUB
NO 5/4, 3RD FLOOR, S.V. ARCADE,
BILAKAHALLI, BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD,
IIBM POST,
BANGALORE
REPTD. BY ITS ASSIT. MANAGER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B.C. SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MASTER MANJUNATHA K.
S/O KRISHNA H.L
AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS,
SINCE MINOR REP BY NATURAL GUARDIAN
AND HIS FATHER,
KRISHNA H.L
S/O LINGAIIAH,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT NO 191/15, MARUTHINAGARA,
5TH CROSS, MADESHWARANAGARA MAIN ROAD,
HEROHALLI CROSS,
BANGALORE-91
2. MUBHARK PASHA
S/O MOHAMMED ATHER ANEES,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/AT ELN 219, NEAR CANARA BANK ROAD,
KUNIGAL TOWN,
KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMAKUR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.LOHIT KUMAR G., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI G.H.CHANNAGANGAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.03.2020
PASSED IN MVC No.5309/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER,
-4-
MFA No. 479 of 2021
C/W MFA No.492 of 2021
MACT, XVIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU CITY, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
Rs.2,19,000/- WITH INTEREST AT SIX PERCENT PER ANNUM
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, CLUBBING BOTH APPEALS, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. The insurer is in appeal challenging the award
of Rs.5,48,000/- awarded for the injuries suffered by
Keshavamurthy H.L., (claimant in MVC No.5308 of 2018)
and a sum of Rs.2,19,000/- awarded for the injuries
suffered by a minor, Mst.Manjunatha K. (claimant in MVC
No.5309 of 2018).
2. It is the principal contention of the learned
counsel for the insurer that two entries were made in the
Accident Register (Exs.R-2 and 3) as follows:
Ex.R3: Page: 149 of Accident Register.
Mst.Manjunatha K.
"History of road traffic accident. One two
wheeler hit him at about 11.15 p.m. today at
Nagegowdanapalya junction when he was
MFA No. 479 of 2021
C/W MFA No.492 of 2021
standing with his cousin brother and father,
holding his two wheeler and ran away.
C/o pain in L.L. Thigh. - Hit and run case."
--*--
Ex.R2: Page: 150 of Accident Register.
Keshavamurthy H.L.
"History of - pls. see the previous page 149.
He was standing with Master Manjunatha K.
with his two wheeler".
3. Subsequently, a statement was given stating
that they were hit by a Tata-Indica car and therefore, the
entire case put forth by the claimants was concocted case
solely to extract compensation from the insurer.
4. The learned counsel for the insurer also laid
great emphasis on the fact that there was a delay of four
days in lodging the First Information Report and this also
created a serious doubt as to whether any accident really
occurred.
MFA No. 479 of 2021
C/W MFA No.492 of 2021
5. Sri.Lohit Kumar G. for Sri.G.H.Channa
Gangaiah, learned counsel for the claimants, on the other
hand, contends that the entries in the Accident Register
clearly indicate that the doctor had recorded that it was a
hit-and-run case. He also submits that the Accident
Register indicates that the entry was made at about 11.15
p.m. on 28.01.2018 and thus, it is clear that the First
Information Report was lodged after two days and this
could not be construed as an inordinate delay so as to
doubt the very accident itself. He contends that the fact
that the entry in the Accident Register indicates that there
was a road traffic accident, itself falsifies the entire
contention advanced by the insurer.
6. As could be seen from the extraction above, the
doctor has recorded the fact that the road traffic accident
did take place at about 11.15 p.m. on 28.01.2018 when
the claimants were hit by another two-wheeler while they
were standing along with their two-wheeler.
MFA No. 479 of 2021
C/W MFA No.492 of 2021
7. This doctor has also been examined as PW-3.
The doctor who supposed to have made entries in the
Accident Register has stated that he has received witness
summons for production of documents and accordingly he
was producing the documents. He has also stated that he
was the person who first provided medical care to the
claimants. However, the insurer has not even made a
suggestion to the said doctor that he was informed by the
claimants that they were hit by a two-wheeler.
8. Sri.B.C.Shivanne Gowda, learned counsel for
the insurer, however, contends that since the signature of
the doctor was admitted by him during the course of his
evidence, it will have to be assumed that he admitted the
entire contents of the Accident Register.
9. It has to be stated here that the entries in the
Accident Register were not in dispute. The insurer, if it
wanted to establish that there was no accident, ought to
have cross-examined the doctor and elicited from the
MFA No. 479 of 2021
C/W MFA No.492 of 2021
doctor that the claimants had informed him that they were
was hit by a two-wheeler.
10. Unfortunately, the insurer has not chosen to
subject the doctor / PW-3 to this line of questioning. It
cannot, therefore, be contended that there was an
admission on the part of the doctor that the claimants
were hit by another two-wheeler.
11. It is also to be stated here that the driver of the
car was charged for a crime, he pleaded guilty to the same
and paid the necessary fine. It is also not in dispute that
the Motor Vehicles Accident Report produced before the
Tribunal indicated that there were damages to the car.
12. In my view, these documents and evidence
clearly establish that the accident did occur between the
claimants and the Indica car in question and the
assessment of evidence on record by the Tribunal to arrive
at the conclusion that the accident did occur cannot be
found fault with.
MFA No. 479 of 2021
C/W MFA No.492 of 2021
13. I find no reason to entertain these appeals by
the insurer and consequently the appeals are dismissed.
14. The amount in deposit be transmitted to the
Tribunal forthwith for disbursement to the claimants in
terms of the award.
SD/-
JUDGE
RK
CT:AN
