Karnataka High Court
Cholamandalam Ms General vs Bhimaraya And Ors on 28 November, 2023
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8869
MFA No. 201953 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201953 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
CHOLAMANDALAM,
MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD,
REGD: OFFICE DARE HOUSE II FLOOR,
NSC BOSE ROAD,
CHENNAI-1,
REPRESENTED BY,
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by LUCYGRACE
Location: HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. BHIMARAYA
S/O PARASAPPA PUJARI,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O BIDNOOR VILLAGE,
TQ. AFZALPUR,
NOW AT PLOT NO.127 GANGA NAGAR,
BRAHMPUR,
KALABURAGI-585102.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8869
MFA No. 201953 of 2018
2. ANIL
S/O BHALAYYA GUTTEDAR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: DRIVER OF TRACTOR NO.
KA32/TA-4755,
R/O SHARNA SIRASAGI,
TQ. & DIST. KALABURAGI-585102.
3. BALAYYA
S/O BHIMAYYA GUTTEDAR,
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF TRACTOR NO.
KA-32/TA-4755,
R/O SHARNA SIRASAGI,
TQ. & DIST. KALABURAGI-585102.
...RESPONDENTS
(R2 & R3 - SERVED;
R1-NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.07.2018 PASSED BY
THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT,
KALABURAGI, IN MVC NO.1035/2014.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant-Insurance Company is before this
Court aggrieved by the judgment and award dated
04.07.2018 passed in MVC No.1035/2014 by the I
Additional Senior Civil Judge and Member, MACT,
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8869
Kalaburagi ('Tribunal'), by which, the Tribunal while
awarding compensation of Rs.97,930/- with interest at the
rate of 6% per annum, has directed the appellant-
Insurance Company to pay the compensation.
2. The only ground urged by the appellant-
Insurance Company is that the Tribunal has failed to
appreciate the deposition of RW2 - Doctor who had
deposed before the Tribunal that in the history of RTO
recorded in Ex.R1 it is stated as the claimant sustained
injuries due to fall from the tractor and the said deposition
has not been discredited. Thus, it is contended that since
RW2 has specifically stated that the accident had occurred
on account of fall from the tractor, the claim of the
claimant that he was hit by a tractor while he was
proceeding by the side of the road to attend nature's call
cannot be accepted.
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8869
3. Notice issued to the respondent No.1-claimant
has been held sufficient and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are
served.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the records.
5. The accident in question resulting in injuries to
the claimant is not disputed. Only the nature, mode and
manner of accident is questioned.
6. As noted above, it is contended that RW2 - Dr.
P.G. Shah based on the case-sheet of the hospital
produced at Ex.R1 has stated in his deposition that as per
the records the accident had occurred due to fall of the
claimant from the tractor. Thus, he submits that in the
light of the said material evidence, the Tribunal ought to
not to have held and accepted the contention of the
claimant.
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8869
7. It is necessary to see that the accident had
occurred on 26.03.2014 at about 01:00 p.m., and the
complaint has been filed on 27.03.2013. It is stated in the
complaint that when the claimant after finishing his food
was proceeding by the side of the road to attend to
nature's call at that time the tractor that was driven by its
driver in rash and negligent manner, hit the claimant and
ran over his left foot causing grievous injuries. The details
of the tractor have been given in the complaint - Ex.P2.
Charge sheet has been filed as per Ex.P3 against
respondent No.1 - driver of the tractor. MLC has been
registered by the hospital where the claimant was treated.
These initial documents would indicate that accident had
occurred on account of the tractor having hit the claimant
while he was walking by the side of the road.
8. Even in Ex.R1 under the 'Column History and
Clinical Note', it is stated that "RTA over run by tractor on
26.03.2014. Pt. brought here directly for treatment".
Thus, the said contents of Ex.R1 also indicate that the
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8869
accident occurred on account of tractor running over the
foot of the claimant. Merely because of some stray
admissions is made by RW2 - Doctor regarding the nature
of the accident, the aforesaid material evidence placed as
record cannot be discredited. The Tribunal has thus come
to the just conclusion on appreciation of the entire
evidence, which cannot be interfered with.
9. Appeal lacks merit, same is dismissed
confirming the judgment and award of the Tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SBS
