Karnataka High Court
Smt Gouravva Kom Fakkirappa ... vs Sri Beerappa S/O Yellappa ... on 3 January, 2023
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
MFA No. 21202 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 21202 OF 2011 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SMT GOURAVVA,
KOM FAKKIRAPPA WADDAR @ DABLEKAR
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
R/O SHIRWAD, BANGARAPPA NAGAR, KARWAR.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. P G MOGALI AND SRI.SATEESH KAWARI, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. SRI BEERAPPA S/O YELLAPPA MIRLAPUR,
AGE: 34 YEARS, R/O 1743/T-21,HABBUWADA,
C.M.C.COLONY, KARWAR,
OWNER OF VEHICLE KA-30/L-2850.
2. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR, 1628,
KAIKINI ROAD, KARWAR.
ANNAPURNA ...RESPONDENTS
CHINNAPPA
DANDAGAL
(BY SRI. A G JADHAV, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 SERVED)
Digitally signed by
ANNAPURNA CHINNAPPA
DANDAGAL
Location: High court of THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988,
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench,
Dharwad
Date: 2023.01.17 11:00:35 -
0800 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:29-10-2010
PASSED IN MVC NO.18/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, II-
ADDL.MACT, KARWAR, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED
U/SEC.166 OF MV ACT.
THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
MFA No. 21202 of 2011
JUDGMENT
Challenging impugned judgment and award dated
29.10.2010 passed by 2nd Additional MACT, Karwar
(referred to as 'Tribunal'), in MVC No.18/2010 on
09.10.2010, this appeal is filed by claimant.
2. Brief facts are that on 03.08.2009 at about 12.00
p.m., when claimant was walking in front of Hindu High
School, Karwar, a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-
30/L-2850 driven by its rider in a rash and negligent
manner dashed against her, causing grievous injuries.
Hence, she filed claim petition for compensation against
owner and insurer of motorcycle under Section 166 of
M.V.Act.
3. On service of summons, owner though entered
appearance did not file written statement. Only insurer filed
written statement admitting issuance of insurance policy
but denied involvement of vehicle in accident. Even
contention regarding rider having proper driving licence was
also taken. Therefore sought for dismissal of claim petition.
MFA No. 21202 of 2011
4. Based on pleadings, Tribunal framed following
issues:
1. Whether the petitioner proves that on 3/8/09 at
about 12.00 p.m. he being a pedestrain was
proceeding towards Shirwad and at the said
relevant time he was collided with from his back
by the motor cycle bearing Reg. No.KA-30/L-2850
which was driven by its rider in a rash and
negligent manner and due to the said collision the
petitioner had sustained fracture of her right
fibula and other injuries. And that due to the said
accident the petitioner has incurred financial loss
and also medical expenditure as narrated in the
petition?
2. Whether the second respondent insurance
company proves that the first respondent has
violated the terms and conditions of the policy
deliberately and with the knowledge the first
respondent had handed over the vehicle in
question to a unauthorised person and therefore
the second respondent is not liable to pay the
compensation?
3. Whether the second respondent proves that the
petitioner and first respondent have colluded with
MFA No. 21202 of 2011
each other so as to cause wrongful loss to the
second respondent?
4. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the
compensation as sought for in the petition ?
5. What order or Award?
5. Thereafter claimant examined herself as PW-1 and
got marked Ex. P.1. to P.8. Insurer did not lead oral
evidence, but produce copy of insurance policy marked with
consent as Ex.R.1.
6. On consideration, tribunal answered issues No.1, 2
and 4 in negative, issue No.3 in affirmative and dismissed
claim petition. Assailing same, this appeal is filed.
7. Grounds urged in appeal are that in respect of
accident in question, after investigation Police have filed
charge sheet in C.C. No.466/2009, wherein owner had
appeared and pleaded guilty. He was accordingly, convicted
for offence of rash and negligent driving and causing
injuries and imposed fine. It is also contended that insurer
did not deny occurrence of accident and claimant sustaining
MFA No. 21202 of 2011
injuries. Even in cross examination, no such suggestions
were made. It is contended that without considering Ex.P.1
to 8, tribunal passed impugned order.
8. Learned counsel for respondents supported
impugned judgment and award.
9. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned
counsel for respondents.
10. From above submissions, only point that would
arises for consideration is:
"Whether award passed by tribunal calls for
interference?."
11. On perusal of impugned award, it is seen that
claim petition is dismissed mainly on ground that claimant
failed to establish involvement of insured vehicle in
accident. Evidence led by claimant in this regard is Ex.P.1 is
FIR in Crime no.59 registered by Traffic Police Station,
Karwar. It is seen that complaint is registered on
04.08.2009 at 2.30.p.m about incident that occurred on
MFA No. 21202 of 2011
03.08.2009 at about 12.00 p.m. FIR is registered based on
statement given by claimant at District Hospital, Karwar.
12. On perusal of complaint, it is seen that
complainant has mentioned name of owner as Beerappa
and also motorcycle number. However, source of such
information is not disclosed. Ex.P.2 is spot panchnama
drawn on 04.08.2009 at about 4.45 p.m. at which point
vehicles were not at accident spot. Therefore, same would
not be helpful. Ex.P.3 is charge sheet filed by Police against
owner of motorcycle for having caused accident leading to
injuries to claimant. Ex.P.4 is order sheet in
C.C.No.466/2009 in which owner entered appearance and
pleaded guilty to offence alleged. Taking same into account
he was convicted and sentence to pay fine. Ex.P.5 is wound
certificate issued by Causality Medical Officer District
Hospital, Karwar. In column for history of injuries it is
clearly stated on 03.08.2009 at about 12.30 p.m... due to
road traffic accident " .
13. A careful perusal would also reveal that
claimant-injured was not accompanied by any one. Ex.P.6
MFA No. 21202 of 2011
is discharge slip issued by District Hospital, Karwar, which
shows date of admission as 03.08.2009 and date of
discharge as 11.08.2009. Ex.P.8-x-rays reveal that they
were taken on 22.07.2010 though there was no mention of
name of claimant. Above evidence has been duly
appreciated by tribunal while passing impugned award. As
rightly observed by tribunal, FIR is registered on basis of
complaint lodged by claimant after 24 hours accident. In
complaint, both motorcycle number and also name of
owner were mentioned. In complaint it is not stated
whether rider had stopped after accident or had fled away.
Though claimant stated that at the time of accident she was
accompanied by her daughter-in-law and who took her to
hospital, but wound certificate issued by hospital indicates
that claimant was not accompanied by any one else. In
history of injuries there was no mention of accident caused
by motorcycle. Neither name of rider nor vehicle number is
mentioned. Though owner pleaded guilty to charge sheet
file, he did not contest claim petition. Therefore, tribunal
appreciated evidence in depth to verify possibility of
collusion between claimant and owner.
MFA No. 21202 of 2011
14. On finding glaring inconsistencies, tribunal
proceeded to dismiss claim petition. In appeal except
contending that owner had pleaded guilty criminal case,
there is no other material produced to establish
involvement of vehicle in accident in question. There is no
explanation for non-examination of claimant's daughter-in-
law, who had accompanied her at time of accident. Under
circumstances no grounds are made out to interfere. Point
for consideration is answered in negative. Hence following:
ORDER
Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
AC
