Karnataka High Court
The Manager National vs Venkappa @ Yenkapa S/O Birabal Gollar ... on 8 August, 2024
Author: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5845
MFA No. 200944 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200944 OF 2017 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
GULBARGA, THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, BILGUNDI COMPLEX
STATION ROAD, KALABURAGI-585 102.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. SANGEETA BHADRASHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. VENKAPPA @ YENKAPA S/O BIRABAL GOLLAR
Digitally signed AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC. NIL
by SUMITRA
SHERIGAR
Location: HIGH 2. BHIMBAI W/O VENKAPPA GOLLAR
COURT OF AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD
KARNATAKA
3. RENUKA W/O LATE BHIMAPPA GOLLAR
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD
4. RAVI S/O LATE BHIMAPPA GOLLAR
AGE: 16 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT
5. SIDDARAM S/O BHIMAPPA GOLLAR
AGE: 14 YEARS, OCC. NIL
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5845
MFA No. 200944 of 2017
6. RAJU S/O LATE BHIMAPPA GOLLAR
AGE: 12 YEARS, OCC. NIL
RESPONDENTS 4-6 HEREIN ARE MINORS U/G OF
RESPONDENT-3 HEREIN NATURAL MOTHER
ALL R/O. ALMALE, TQ.SINDAGI
DIST. BIJAPUR, PRESENT R/O. ANOOR,
TQ. AFZALPUR, DIST. GULBARGA.
7. MALLIKARJUN S/O TIPPANNA MEALINMANI
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF THE VEHICLE
BEARING NO.KA-28/R-1237,
R/O. ALMEL, TQ. SINDAGI,
DIST. BIJAPUR-586128.
8. RAMESH S/O SHIVAPPA KADLEWAD @ KHARGE
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER
R/O. ALMEL, TQ. SINDAGI,
DIST. BIJAPUR-586128.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3;
R4 TO R6 ARE MINORS U/G FOR R3;
SRI VEERANAGOUDA, ADV. FOR R7 & R8)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO
CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN MVC NO.418/2007, DATED
17.01.2017, ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, AT
KALABURAGI AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD IN MVC NO.418/2007
DATED-17.01.2017 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, AT
KALABURAGI.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5845
MFA No. 200944 of 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)
1. The appeal is by the insurer challenging the award
for Rs.8,14,000/- awarded for the death of Bhimappa who
was killed in an accident when he was riding as a pillion on
a motorcycle.
2. The insurer has filed this appeal basically contending
that the motorcycle in question was implicated. It is
contended that the FIR lodged by the brother-in-law of the
deceased indicated that a motorcycle without any
registration was responsible for the accident, whereas a
charge sheet had been filed by the police holding that a
particular motorcycle which was insured by the appellant
was involved. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the
vehicle insured by the appellant insurer was involved in
the accident.
3. It may be pertinent to state here that the insurer
summoned the Deputy Superintendent of Police who was
the investigating officer and he was examined as RW.2.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5845
This Deputy Superintendent of Police has stated during his
deposition that he was able to secure information about
the involvement of this vehicle and consequently this
vehicle was named in the charge sheet. The insurer,
though summoned this Deputy Superintendent of Police,
did not chose to treat him as hostile and did not seek to
cross-examine him. Thus, the statement given by the
Deputy Superintendent of Police that he conducted an
investigation and found that this vehicle was involved has
remained unchallenged.
4. Learned counsel for the insurer however states that
the Deputy Superintendent of Police had conceded during
his evidence that he had not investigated the chassis
number/engine number which had been stated in the
complaint and this by itself would indicate that the vehicle
insured by it was not involved.
5. A reading of the FIR would indicate that the brother-
in-law of the deceased, while lodging the complaint had
suspected that the deceased may have met with the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5845
accident in the motorcycle which had no registration
number. It cannot therefore be alleged from this that the
brother-in-law did specifically mention one particular
motorcycle in which he had traveled.
6. It is also argued that no vehicle was found at the
spot and therefore the entire involvement of the
motorcycle was in serious doubt. When a high ranking
Officer comes before the Court and deposes that on
investigation he found that this vehicle is involved, unless
there was clear evidence to discredit this particular
deposition, it would be improper to ignore the same.
7. I am therefore of the view that the Tribunal was
justified in coming to the conclusion that the vehicle
insured by the appellant was the vehicle in which the
deceased traveled and as a consequence the insurer would
have to satisfy the liability. The appeal is therefore
dismissed.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5845
8. The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transferred
along with trial Court records to the concerned Tribunal for
disbursal in terms of the award.
Sd/-
(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)
JUDGE
MSR
