Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Hanumanthappa S/O Shivappa on 16 September, 2022
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
MFA No. 24865 of 2010
C/W MFA No. 20210 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD
BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 24865 OF 2010
(MV-)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 20210 OF 2012
IN MFA No.24865/2010
BETWEEN:
1. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., PARWATHI NAGAR, OPP.
PETROL BUNK, TQ. and DIST. BELLARY, THROUGH
DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
SUJATHA COMPLEX, OPP. P. B. ROAD, HUBLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S K KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. HANUMANTHAPPA S/O SHIVAPPA
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O MUDDATANUR
VILLAGE, TQ. SIRUGUPPA, DIST. BELLARY.
2. MUNESHWARA S/O K. KALASAPPA,
AGE: 35 YEARS, DRIVER OF THE HEROHONDA MOTOR
CYCLE BEARING NO. KA 34/R-8093, R/O MUDDATANUR
-2-
MFA No. 24865 of 2010
C/W MFA No. 20210 of 2012
VILLAGE, SIRUGUPPA TQ., DIST. BELLARY.
3. SIDDARAMAPPA S/O MALEPPA
AGE: MAJOR, OWNER OF THE HEROHONDA MOTOR CYCLE
BEARING NO. KA 34/R-8093, R/O KOLUR VILLAGE, TQ.
AND DIST. BELLARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1,
R2 & R3 ARE SERVED)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF THE MV ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:18-02-2010 PASSED IN
MVC NO.1083/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, BELLARY,
AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.1,47,400/- WITH INTEREST
AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
DEPOSIT.
IN MFA No.20210/2012
BETWEEN
SRI.HANUMANTHAPPA S/O. SHIVAPPA
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MUDDATANUR VILLAGE, TQ: SIRUGUPPA, DIST: BELLARY.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SRI.MUNESHWARA S/O. K. KALASAPPA
AGE: 39 YEARS,R/O. MUDDATANUR VILLAGE,
TQ: SIRUGUPPA, DIST: BELLARY.
2. SIDDARAMAPPA S/O. MALEPPA
AGE: MAJOR, R/O. KOLUR VILLAGE,
TQ AND DIST: BELLARY.
3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
-3-
MFA No. 24865 of 2010
C/W MFA No. 20210 of 2012
PARVATHI NAGAR, OPP. PETROL BUNK,
TQ: DIST: BELLARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.K.KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R3,
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH,
NOTICE TO R2 SERVED)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF THE MV ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:18-02-2010 PASSED IN
MVC NO.1083/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, BELLARY,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard learned counsel for both parties.
2. These two appeals are filed by Insurance
Company and also claimant questioning the judgement
and award passed in MVC No.1083/2008 dated
18.02.2010 on the file of MACT, Ballari.
3. Factual matrix of the case of the claimant
before the Tribunal is that on 13.03.2008 at about 2.30
p.m. when he was standing in front of Siddarampura bus
stand, at that time respondent No.1 being the rider of the
MFA No. 24865 of 2010
C/W MFA No. 20210 of 2012
motorcycle drove the same in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed against him. As a result, he had
sustained injuries and therefore he laid a claim before the
Tribunal.
4. Insurance Company appeared and filed written
statement contending that policy was in force and the
same is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. In
order to substantiate the claim of the claimant, he
examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined brother of
claimant as P.W.3 and doctor as P.W.2. Respondents have
not led any evidence before the Court. The Tribunal after
considering both the oral and documentary evidence on
record, awarded compensation of Rs.1,47,400/- with 6%
interest.
5. The main contention of the Insurance Company
is that accident was occurred on 13.03.2008 and
complaint was lodged on 31.03.2008 and immediately the
injured was taken to Danamma Super Speciality Hospital,
MFA No. 24865 of 2010
C/W MFA No. 20210 of 2012
Ballari wherein statement was given that it was a case of
self fall from the motorcycle. Counsel also submits that
there is an endorsement in the case sheet records that
P.W.3 who is examined before the Court made statement
that it was a case of self fall and no need to register MLC
case. Inspite of these documents are brought to the notice
of the Tribunal, the Tribunal failed to take note of the said
fact into consideration and during the course of cross-
examination of P.W.2 specifically question was put to him
and even doctor also in the cross-examination admitted
that statement was given that it is a case of self fall and
no need to register case and P.W.3 though examined and
denied the said averments who is none other than the
brother of claimant and these are the aspects which have
not been considered.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for claimant submits
that Insurance Company has not led any evidence before
the Court and in the absence of any evidence disputing the
very accident, the Court cannot presume the same and
MFA No. 24865 of 2010
C/W MFA No. 20210 of 2012
P.W.3 is the brother who gave the explanation with regard
to mentioning of the same saying that he has not given
any such statement.
7. Having heard the respective counsel and also
on perusal of the material available on record and medical
records, the claimant was immediately shifted to PHC
Karur and no documents of the said hospital are produced,
but documents pertaining to Danamma Super Speciality
Hospital are produced, wherein there was an entry that it
is a self fall from the bike at the first instance and apart
from that P.W.3 also given statement and statement is
recorded in the case sheet that it is a case of self fall and
no need to register a case. When such material is on
record and P.W.2 doctor though he says that history was
given that he has sustained accidental injuries but in the
cross-examination categorically admits that statement was
given by the brother of the claimant in the hospital while
admitting the injured stating that it was a case of self fall
and no one is responsible for the said incident and hence,
MFA No. 24865 of 2010
C/W MFA No. 20210 of 2012
no need to make any police case. When such admission is
elicited from the mouth of doctor who treated the injured
and material is available on record that it is a case of self
fall, the Tribunal committed an error in not considering the
same and fraud and justice never dwell together and
admittedly accident has taken place on 13.03.2008 and
complaint was lodged on 31.03.2008 and there was delay
of 17 days in lodging the complaint. Factual aspects of the
case is twisted in order to make wrongful gain and hence,
I find force in the contention of the counsel for the
appellant-Insurance Company that it is a case of fraud in
getting the compensation. When such being the case, it is
a fit case to reverse the findings of the Tribunal.
8. Learned counsel for the claimant has also filed
an appeal for enhancement of compensation. The same
needs to be dismissed in view of coming to the conclusion
that the claim is made by fraudulent act. Hence, I pass the
following:
MFA No. 24865 of 2010
C/W MFA No. 20210 of 2012
ORDER
Appeal filed by Insurance Company is allowed.
Appeal filed by claimant is dismissed.
The impugned judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal is set aside. Claim petition is hereby dismissed.
Amount in deposit, if any, is ordered to be refunded
to the Insurance Company proper identification.
The registry is directed to transmit the trial court
records forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SH
