Karnataka High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Smt. Puttamma on 1 April, 2024
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:13199
MFA No. 1879 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1879 OF 2013(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, QUEENS CROSS ROAD,
1:1, KONNAGI ROAD, BANGALORE-52,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
S.S.COMPLEX, SUBHASH SQUARE, HASSAN.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
THE MANAGER,
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR,
SUMANGALA COMPLEX, LAMINGTON ROAD,
HUBLI-580 020.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M.U.POONACHA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. PUTTAMMA
W/O PUTTASWAMY,
Digitally signed by AGED 45 YEARS,
THEJASKUMAR N
Location: HIGH R/AT THATTEKERE VILLAGE,
COURT OF KASABA HOBLI,
KARNATAKA
HASSAN-573 201.
2. SRI. RANGASWAMY
S/O RAMASHETTY,
MAJOR,
R/AT BHARATHI EXTENSION,
NO.69, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE-29.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. LAKSHMI., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. PRASANNA.V.R., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2-HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DATED:26.03.2018)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:13199
MFA No. 1879 of 2013
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:16.10.2012
PASSED IN MVC NO.416/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT,
HASSAN.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR
FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Sri.M.U.Poonacha., learned counsel for the appellant has
appeared through video conferencing.
Smt.Lakshmi., learned counsel on behalf of
Sri.Prasanna.V.R., for respondent No.1 has appeared in person.
2. Notice to the respondents was ordered on
19.04.2013. A perusal of the daily order sheet depicts that vide
order dated:26.03.2018 notice to respondent No.2 is held
sufficient. He has neither engaged the services of an advocate
nor conducted the case as party in person.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their status and rankings before the Tribunal.
NC: 2024:KHC:13199
4. The brief facts are these:
In the claim petition it is stated that on the 18th day of
July 2007 at about 1:00 pm., the claimant and her husband
Puttaswamy were walking near Reliance Petrol Bunk at
Thattekere after alighting from a Tempo at Channarayapatna
by-pass. At that time, a Tanker lorry bearing Registration
No.KA-03-A-2273 came from Petrol bunk side in a rash and
negligent manner and hit her. Due to the impact, she fell and
sustained injuries. Contending that she is entitled for
compensation, the claimant filed claim petition.
In response to the notice, the first respondent remained
absent before the Tribunal and hence, he was 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
claim petition.
Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed
issues, parties led evidence and marked the documents. The
Tribunal vide Judgment dated:16.10.2012 partly allowed the
claim petition. The Insurance Company has assailed the
NC: 2024:KHC:13199
Judgment of the Tribunal in this appeal on several grounds as
set-out in the Memorandum of appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the respective parties have
urged several contentions.
Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the
decision in BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED VS. B.C.KUMAR reported in ILR 2009
KAR 2921.
Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective
parties and perused the appeal papers and also the records
with utmost care.
6. The point that requires consideration is whether the
Judgment of the Tribunal requires interference.
7. The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require
reiteration. Sri.M.U.Poonacha., learned counsel for the
appellant in presenting his arguments vehemently contended
that the claimant has played fraud on the Court by falsely
involving the insurer in the accident. He argued by saying that
the claimant went to the hospital with a history of Road Traffic
NC: 2024:KHC:13199
Accident on the 18th day of July 2007 contending that she was
hit by a lorry while going on a bike. However, in the claim
petition it is stated that the claimant and her husband were
proceeding as pedestrian. Learned counsel therefore, submits
that the claimant has made a contradictory version. To
substantiate the said contention, he drew the attention of the
Court to Ex.P.12 and the claim petition.
Perused the Judgment and the records of the Tribunal
with utmost care. Ex.P.12 is the Case Sheet of the claimant
from SSM Hospital, Hassan. In the case sheet, there is a note
on the 18th day of July 2007. It reads as under:
"H/o RTA; 18/7/07. As hit by a Lorry while
going in a bike, at Bittagondanahalli."
A perusal of the same reveals that the claimant has gone
with a history of Road traffic accident contending that she was
hit by a lorry while going on a bike. However, in the claim
petition, she has clearly stated that she and her husband were
walking and she was hit by Tanker lorry and sought
compensation. If one reads the history sheet and the claim
statement carefully, it can be safely concluded that the
NC: 2024:KHC:13199
claimant has made a contradictory statement. The claimant has
not approached the Tribunal with clean hands.
Smt.Lakshmi., counsel appearing on behalf of the
claimant made an attempt to contend that the claimant was
nervous, hence a statement was made before the doctor that
she was hit by a lorry while going on a bike. However, in the
claim statement the claimant has stated the true version. She
argued by saying that the Insurance Company has admitted the
accident and if at all there is a contradictory version, it is
incumbent on the part of the Insurance Company to file a police
complaint. In the absence of a police complaint, the insurance
company cannot urge the ground in the appeal. The said
contention is untenable. The reason is simple. There is nothing
on record to show that the claimant was nervous. Absolutely,
there is no explanation about the contradictory statements.
Hence, it raises a doubt about the occurrence of the accident.
In my view, the claimant has failed to establish that the
accident occurred on the date, time and place as alleged by her
in the claim petition. In other words, a false claim petition was
filed in order to make an unlawful gain and to make insurance
company a victim of such an act on the part of the claimant.
NC: 2024:KHC:13199
I may venture to say that the tribunal has failed to have
regard to relevant consideration and disregarded relevant
matters.
8. For the reasons stated above, the Judgment
dated:16.10.2012 passed by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and
Addl.M.A.C.T., Hassan in M.V.C.No.416/2008 is liable to be set-
aside. Accordingly, it is set-aside. The Claim Petition is
rejected.
9. Resultantly, the Miscellaneous First Appeal is
allowed.
The amount in deposit, if any shall be refunded/ released
in favor of the Insurance Company after due identification.
Sd/-
JUDGE
TKN
