Karnataka High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Sri R Ramachandra on 8 April, 2024
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:14494
MFA No. 8959 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8959 OF 2013(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DO.1, NO.1, THEJAS COMPLEX,
CSI SAYYAJI ROAD, P.B.NO.27, MYSORE,
REPRESENTED BY REGIONAL OFFICE:
NO.44/45, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX,
RESIDENCY ROAD, BANGALORE-560 025.
BY ITS DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR.C.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. R.RAMACHANDRA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
S/O SIDDEGOWDA @ RAMEGOWDA,
R/O THYAGARAJA MOHALLA,
Digitally signed by BANNUR TOWN,
THEJASKUMAR N T.NARASIPURA TALUK,
Location: HIGH MYSORE DISTRICT-570 001.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. SRI. SIDDAPPA S.R.
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
S/O SRI. RAJU,
R/O SENAPATHIHALLI VILLAGE,
BANNUR HOBLI,
T.NARASIPURA TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT-570 001.
3. SRI. RAJESHA K.S.
MAJOR,
S/O SRI. SIDDEGOWDA,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:14494
MFA No. 8959 of 2013
R/O KANCHANAHALLI VILLAGE,
BANNUR HOBLI,
T.NARASIPURA TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT-570 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P.S.DIVAKARA., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 AND R3 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:27.06.2013
PASSED IN MVC NO.15/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, MACT, T.NARASIPURA.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR
DICTATING JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Sri.Ravishankar.C.R., learned counsel for the appellant
and Sri.P.S.Divakara., learned counsel for respondent No.1
have appeared in person.
2. Emergent notice to the respondents was ordered on
12.11.2013. A perusal of the office note depicts that
respondents 2 & 3 are served and unrepresented. They have
neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the
case as party in person.
NC: 2024:KHC:14494
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their status and rankings before the Tribunal.
4. It is the case of the claimant that on the twenty
ninth day of June 2008 at about 6:30 p.m., he was crossing the
road after alighting from the bus near Mellahalli circle. At that
time, a rider of a bike bearing Reg. No.KA-09-EJ-3556 came in
a rash and negligent manner and hit him. Due to the impact,
the claimant fell and sustained grievous injuries all over the
body. He was admitted to Gopalagowda Shanthaveri Memorial
Hospital, Mysore and took treatment as an inpatient.
Contending that he is entitled for compensation, the claimant
filed a claim petition.
In response to the notice, respondents 1 and 3 did not
appear before the Tribunal and hence, they were placed ex-
parte. The second respondent Insurance Company appeared
through its counsel and filed written statement denying the
petition averments. Among other grounds, it prayed for
dismissal of the petition.
Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed
issues, parties led evidence and marked the documents. The
NC: 2024:KHC:14494
Tribunal vide Judgment dated:27.06.2013 partly allowed the
Claim Petition. The Insurance Company has assailed the
Judgment of the Tribunal in this appeal on several grounds as
set-out in the Memorandum of appeal.
5. Sri.C.R.Ravishankar., learned counsel for the
Insurance company in presenting his arguments vehemently
contended that the accident occurred on 29.06.2008, but the
complaint was given on 09.07.2008. There is a delay of 10 days
in making a complaint. He argued by saying that it is a case of
self fall. Hence, the Tribunal has erred in entertaining the claim
petition. Counsel therefore, submits that the claim petition may
be dismissed and the appeal may be allowed.
Sri.P.S.Divakara., learned counsel for the claimant
submits that the rider of the offending vehicle is the resident of
the adjacent village of the claimant and they are known to each
other. The rider of the offending vehicle made a verbal
assurance that he would bear the medical expenses and also
promised to take him to Mysore for treatment. Believing the
assurance of the rider of the offending vehicle, the claimant
kept quite. Hence, there is a delay in making a complaint. He
NC: 2024:KHC:14494
argued by saying that in the statement of objections, the
Insurance Company has not pleaded that it is a case of self fall.
It is also contended that Dr.Krishna Murthy has issued the
Wound Certificate, the Wound Certificate is confronted to the
claimant, but the Insurance Company has not made efforts to
examine the doctor. Counsel therefore, submits that the appeal
is devoid of merits and the same may be dismissed.
6. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the
respective parties and perused the appeal papers and also the
records with utmost care.
7. The point that requires consideration is whether the
Judgment of the Tribunal requires interference.
8. The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require
reiteration. According to the claimant, the accident occurred on
29.06.2008. He specifically contends that he sustained grievous
injuries on account of the accident. It's a common sense that
when a person is grievously injured on account of the accident,
he would visit the hospital for treatment immediately. However,
in the present case, the claimant was admitted to the hospital
on 30.06.2008 that is a day after the alleged accident. There is
NC: 2024:KHC:14494
no explanation as to why he was admitted one day after the
occurrence of the accident.
Ex.C.6 is the Case Sheet of the claimant from Gopala
Gowda Shanthaveri Memorial Group of Hospital. A perusal of
the same depicts that the claimant was admitted to the hospital
on 30.06.2008. In the third page of the case sheet, in Chief
Complaints column, it is noted as under:
"H/o self-fall from bike on 30.06.2008 at 9:30
pm., near Teresian college."
In the fifth page of the case sheet, in Advice column, it is
noted as under:
"History of RTA self-fall - 9:30 pm., on
29.06.2008, injury to face, Rt shoulder."
In the Claim Petition, the claimant contends that the
accident occurred on 29.06.2008. However, in the case sheet,
at page No.3 and page No.5, the date of the accident is noted
differently. Hence, it raises a doubt. Furthermore, a complaint
is made on 09.07.2008. There is a delay of 10 days in making a
complaint. An attempt is made on behalf of the claimant that
the rider of the offending vehicle made a verbal assurance that
NC: 2024:KHC:14494
he would bear the medical expenses and requested him not to
file a complaint. Hence, he did not make a complaint well in
time. In this Court also, he has adhered to the said contention.
The contention cannot be accepted. The reason is simple. There
is nothing on record about the alleged verbal assurance made
by the rider of the offending vehicle.
Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that
it's a case of self-fall, however, the Tribunal overlooked this
aspect of the matter and erroneously awarded compensation.
By way of reply to this contention, learned counsel for the
claimant strenuously urged that in the written statement, the
Insurance Company has not pleaded that it's a case of self fall.
Counsel therefore, submits that the Tribunal referred to the
material on record and justified in awarding compensation.
The submission made on behalf of the respective parties
about the self-fall is noted with utmost care. Ex.P.7 and Ex.R.1
are the true copies of the Wound Certificate dated:17.07.2008
issued by Dr.Krishnamurthy, Medical Officer, GGSM Group of
Hospitals, Nazarabad, Mysore. According to the claimant the
accident occurred on 29.06.2008. The evidence of the claimant
NC: 2024:KHC:14494
reveals that he was taking treatment from 30.06.2008 to
06.07.2008 and 14.07.2008. However, the wound certificate is
issued on 17.07.2008. A perusal of the wound certificate
reveals that it's a case of self-fall. In the wound certificate, it is
stated as under:
"...... injury said to have been caused on
and to be due to self fall from bike on
29.06.2008 at 9:30 pm., at Mellahalli Circle,
Mysore."
If one reads the wound certificate carefully, it can be
safely concluded that it's a case of self-fall. Hence, the
contention about the absence of pleading regarding self-fall is
must necessarily fail. To conclude, I can say only this much
that the Tribunal has failed to have regard to relevant
consideration and disregarded relevant matters.
9. For the reasons stated above, the Judgment
dated:27.06.2013 passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge &
MACT, Narasipura in M.V.C.No.15/2009 is liable to be set-aside.
Accordingly, it is set-aside. The Claim petition is rejected.
NC: 2024:KHC:14494
10. Resultantly, the Miscellaneous First Appeal is
allowed.
The Registry concerned is directed to refund the amount
in deposit, if any to the Insurance Company after due
identification.
Sd/-
JUDGE
TKN
