Karnataka High Court
National Insurance Co Ltd vs Sri H J Somashekara on 30 August, 2023
Bench: Lalitha Kanneganti
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:30958
MFA No. 7181 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7181 OF 2014 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
HASSAN BRANCH,
THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE,
NO.144, SUBHARAM COMPLEX,
M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.
REP. BY ITS ADMN. OFFICER,
MR. MOHITH CHAWLA.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHUBHAM N. M., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SEETHARAMA RAO B. C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. H.J. SOMASHEKARA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
Digitally POLICE CONSTABLE,
signed by JAI
JYOTHI J RESIDING AT DOOR NO.8(A),
Location: HOUSING BOARD,
HIGH COURT HASSAN - 573 201.
OF
KARNATAKA DECEASED BY LR'S
1(a) SMT. ROOPA H. L.,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
W/O LATE. H.J. SOMASHEKARA.
1(b) KUM. HARSHITHA S.,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
D/O LATE. H.J. SOMASHEKARA.
1(c) KUM. VINUTHA S.,
AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS,
D/O LATE. H.J. SOMASHEKARA.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:30958
MFA No. 7181 of 2014
SINCE R1(C) IS MINOR REPRESENTED
BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER R1(A)
SMT. ROOPA H. C.,
R1(A) TO R1(C) ARE RESIDING AT
NO.8(A), 27TH CROSS, KUVEMPUNAGARA,
HASSAN, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201.
2. MR. SARDAR HUSSAIN,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
S/O MR. KHALANDAR HUSSAIN,
RESIDENT OF HULIYAR ROAD,
I CROSS, ARASIKERE - 573 103.
(OWNER OF LORRY NO.KA.13/4915)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GURUSWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 (A TO C);
R2 - IS SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED:21.07.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.2057/2006 ON
THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT,
ADDITIONAL MACT, HASSAN, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
Rs.40,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company
aggrieved by the judgment and award passed in MVC
No.2057/2006 dated 31.07.2017. The claim petition was filed
seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- for the
injuries sustained by the claimant.
NC: 2023:KHC:30958
MFA No. 7181 of 2014
2. The case of the claimant is that, on 18.06.2003 at
about 6.30 a.m., when the claimant along with others was
proceeding in an Auto. The offending vehicle driven by its
driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed the petitioner's
Auto. Due to the said impact, the petitioner sustained grievous
injuries and taken treatment at S.C Hospital, Hassan and as an
inpatient for one and half months and then at Nimhans
Hospital, Bengaluru. He has spent more than Rs.30,000/-
towards medical expenses. Earlier the Court below has allowed
the claim petition and against that, MFA No.8068/2009 was
filed and this Court by judgment dated 29.02.2012, has
remanded the matter back to the Tribunal.
3. It is the case of the appellant-Insurance company
that, there are interpolations in the cover note and as per the
policy, it is effect from 11.06.2002 to 10.06.2003. The
Insurance Company had not produced the insurance policy and
the premium payment register. Hence, the matter was
remanded back to the Tribunal by this Court. After remand, the
Court below has again passed an order granting compensation
of an amount of Rs.40,000/-.
NC: 2023:KHC:30958
MFA No. 7181 of 2014
4. It is the case of the Insurance Company before the
Court below that, the offending lorry was not insured with the
second respondent as on the date of the accident. After remand
of the case, they got examined Administrative Officer as RW1
and got marked Ex.R1 to R5. As per his evidence the
respondent vehicle was insured with the second respondent for
the period from 11.06.2002 to 10.06.2003 and the accident
had occurred on 18.06.2003, after expiry of policy period. The
claimant has placed the cover note before the Court showing
that, policy is in effect from 11.06.2003 to 30.08.2003. In the
said cover note, they have fabricated and there is interpolation.
There is interpolation in respect of issuance date also. In the
place of six it has been corrected as eight and the same has
been filed before the Court. It is contended by the learned
counsel for Insurance Company that the claimant has played
fraud on the Court.
5. The Court below on this issue has held that, the
length end of left side Ex.P8 i.e., cover note is perused the date
mentioned as 10.08.2002. According to the learned counsel for
the respondent No.2 date of the commencement of Ex.P8 is
from 11.06.2002 to 10.06.2003 and if that being the case the
NC: 2023:KHC:30958
MFA No. 7181 of 2014
date of issue of Ex.P8 ought to have been 11.08.2002 and not
10.08.2002 as mentioned on the left corner of Ex.P8. Basing on
that the Court has come to the conclusion that, there is an
existing policy as on the date of the accident. There is an
interpolation as well as issuance date also.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance
Company submits that, the Court completely fail to appreciate
the exhibits marked on behalf of the Insurance Company i.e.,
Ex.R1 to R5. It is submitted that, the claimant conveniently has
filed only the cover note, but failed to file the Insurance Policy
which was issued. The Insurance Policy clearly shows that, the
policy is from 11.06.2002 to 10.06.2003. He submits that, after
the accident the owner of the vehicle has taken another policy
i.e., from 30.08.2003 to 29.08.2004. They have also marked
Ex.R4 premium register extract which shows that, he paid the
premium on 11.06.2003 and by filing the same they could
establish before the Court that, fraud was played by the
claimant for getting the compensation.
7. This matter was listed on 28.08.2023 and again on
29.09.2023 on that day also there no representation on behalf
of the respondents. The Court has heard learned counsel for
NC: 2023:KHC:30958
MFA No. 7181 of 2014
the appellant and for giving an opportunity to the respondents.
The matter is posted today under the caption judgment, today
also there is no representation on behalf of the respondents.
Hence, this Court is inclined to decide the case on the available
material on record.
8. This Court has perused Ex.R2 policy which clearly
shows that, the policy is valid from 11.06.2002 to 10.06.2003
further Ex.R5 the premium register extract strengthen the case
of the respondents as the premium was paid on 11.06.2002.
When the premium was paid on 11.06.2002 the question of
issuing the policy on 11.08.2002 does not arise. On perusal of
Ex.P8 the cover note discloses that, at three paras the numbers
'6' i.e., month June was corrected as '8' to show that as August
month and to get the compensation amount. The Court below
failed to consider the evidence adduced on behalf of the
respondents and looking at the issuance date at the bottom has
come to the wrong conclusion that the there is a valid policy as
on the date of the accident. In view of the above discussion
particularly looking at Ex.R2 and Ex.R4. This Court has no
hesitation to come to the conclusion that, there is interpolation
and the policy is effective from 11.06.2002 to 10.06.2003 and
NC: 2023:KHC:30958
MFA No. 7181 of 2014
the accident had taken place on 18.06.2003 and as on the date
of the accident there is no policy existing and hence, the
Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. The
compensation so awarded by the Court below, the owner alone
is liable to pay the compensation.
9. Accordingly the appeal is allowed.
i) The amount deposited by the Insurance Company shall
be forthwith transmitted that the Court below and the
Insurance Company is at liberty to withdraw the same.
SD/-
JUDGE
KBM
CT:PH
