Karnataka High Court
The Branch Manager vs Sri M R Gangadhar on 2 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:4709
MFA No. 2087 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2087 OF 2013 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. THE BRANCH MANAGER
M/S. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED
NO.1188, 26TH MAIN ROAD
RAGIGUDDA TEMPLE ROAD
9TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE 560059
NOW REP. BY M/S. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED
REGIONAL OFFICE
LEO COMPLEX, OFF M.G. ROAD
BANGALORE 560001
REP. BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K SURESH., ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by AND:
BHARATHI S
Location: 1. SRI M R GANGADHAR
HIGH COURT S/O SRI M.H. RAMANNA
OF
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT NO.685, MUNICIPAL ROAD
SUBASHNAGAR
NELAMANGALA
2. SRI R. RAJKUMAR
S/O SRI RAJA IYENGAR
MAJOR, R/AT. NO.21/1, 2ND CROSS
SHANKARAPURAM
BANGALORE 560004
...RESPONDENTS
(R1 & R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:4709
MFA No. 2087 of 2013
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.8.2012 PASSED IN MVC
NO.7378/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE 3RD ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION
OF RS.40,170/- WITH INTEREST @ 8% P.A FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The above appeal is filed by the insurer challenging the
judgment and award dated 27.8.2012 passed in MVC
No.7378/2010 by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Member,
MACT, Bangalore1.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are
referred as per their rank before the Tribunal.
3. The relevant facts necessary for consideration of
the present appeal are that the claimant filed a claim petition
contending that on 3.6.2010 when he was crossing the road a
car came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the claimant
causing the accident in question wherein, the claimant
sustained injuries. Claiming compensation for the said injuries,
a claim was filed arraying the owner of the car as a respondent.
Subsequent to filing the claim petition, the claimant filed an
Hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'
NC: 2024:KHC:4709
application to implead the insurer and the said application was
allowed on 17.11.2011 by the Tribunal and the insurer was
impleaded as respondent No.2. The owner of the vehicle was
placed ex parte. The insurer contested the claim proceedings
by filing the statement of objections.
4. The claimant examined himself as PW.1. Exs.P1 to
P9 were marked in evidence. The representative of the insurer
was examined as RW.1. Ex.R1 was marked in evidence. The
Tribunal by its judgment and award dated allowed the claim
petition and awarded a compensation of `40,170/- together
with interest at 8% pa. The claim petition against the first
respondent - owner was dismissed and it was ordered that the
second respondent - insurer is liable to pay the compensation
awarded. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant - insurer at the
outset would contend that the claim petition having been
dismissed against the owner, the question of directing the
insurer to pay the compensation awarded does not arise. It is
further contended that the insured vehicle was stolen on
10.12.1998 and a complaint in that regard was filed before the
NC: 2024:KHC:4709
jurisdictional Sheshadripuram Police Station and Crime
No.391/1998 was registered. Thereafter, since the insured
vehicle was not traced, a final report dated 3.4.1999 was
submitted by the police authorities, consequent to which the
insurer settled the claim of the registered owner by paying the
value of the vehicle. Hence, it is contended that the vehicle
having been stolen in the year 1998 itself, the question of the
insurer being made liable to pay the compensation does not
arise. He further submits that the Tribunal has not appreciated
the said aspect of the matter and has erred in holding the
insurance company liable to pay the compensation awarded.
6. The respondents have been served and
unrepresented.
7. The submissions of the learned counsel for the
appellant have been considered and the material on record
including the records of the Tribunal have been perused. The
question that arises for consideration is, whether the judgment
and award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be interfered
with?
NC: 2024:KHC:4709
8. The essential facts are undisputed inasmuch as the
insured vehicle was stolen and in that regard a complaint in
Crime No.391/1998 was filed. It is further deposed by RW.1,
the representative of the insurer that a final report has been
submitted by the police authorities stating that the vehicle was
not traced and hence, the insurer has paid the value of the
vehicle to the insured. It is forthcoming from the complaint
dated 5.7.2012 (Ex.R1) that the insurer has lodged a complaint
with the Commissioner of Police. It is further forthcoming that
in the claim petition although the details of the vehicle was
furnished the insurance particulars have not been furnished.
9. The claimant has not produced the insurance policy
with regard to the insured vehicle. The insurer has
categorically stated that the vehicle in question was stolen on
10.12.1998. Hence, the claimant has failed to prove that as on
the date of the accident there was a valid policy of insurance
available wherein, the insurer had validly insured the vehicle in
question.
10. It is further forthcoming that the claimant is a Head
Constable at the Devanahalli Police Station. In the absence of
NC: 2024:KHC:4709
the claimant furnishing even the requisite details of the policy
of insurance of the car, the question of making the insurer
liable to pay the compensation awarded does not arise.
11. It is further noticed that the Tribunal has dismissed
the claim petition against the first respondent - owner. The
claim petition having been dismissed against the owner, the
question of directing the insurer to pay the compensation does
not arise. In view of the aforementioned, the finding of the
Tribunal is ex facie erroneous and liable to be interfered with.
In view of the aforementioned, the question framed for
consideration is answered in the affirmative.
12. In view of the aforementioned, the following order
is passed:
ORDER
i) The above appeal is allowed;
ii) The judgment and award dated 27.8.2012 passed
in MVC No.7378/2010 on the file of the III
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Member, MACT,
Bangalore, is set aside;
iii) The claim petition in MVC No.7378/2010 on the file
of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Member,
MACT, Bangalore, is dismissed.
NC: 2024:KHC:4709
iv) The amount deposited by the appellant be refunded
to the appellant.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ND
