Karnataka High Court
The Manager Uniged India Insu.Co.Ltd vs Sharanappa Bhimappa Jogi on 8 February, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2882
MFA No. 20048 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 20048 OF 2012 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
CO. LTD, MELLIGERI COMPLEX, KALADAGI ROAD,
BAGALKOT, NOW REP. BY ITS SR. DIVISIONAL
MANAGER, S. M. DHARMANANDARAO,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, "SEETA SMRUTI",
MARUTI GALLI, BELGAUM.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAVINDRA R. MANE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. SHARANAPPA BHIMAPPA JOGI,
AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: CLEANER,
AGRICULTURE, COOLIE GARAGE,
NOW NILL, R/O. SHIRAGUPPI,
TAL: BAGALKOT, DIST: BAGALKOT.
2. SRI. BHIMAPPA S/O. YALLAPPA JOGI,
BHARATHI
HM AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL, LANDLORD
AND OWNER OF TT, R/O. SHIRAGUPPI,
Digitally signed
by BHARATHI H TAL: BAGALKOT, DIST: BAGALKOT.
M
Date: 2024.02.21 ...RESPONDENTS
11:57:37 +0530
(BY SRI. P. N. HOSAMANE, ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NO.1,
NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.2 SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1)
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS
HEAR THE PARTIES AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR BY
SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD OF RS.94,200/- WITH
6% INTEREST PER ANNUM PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRI. SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, BAGALKOT IN MVC NO.554/2008 DATED
25/07/2011 WITH COSTS AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2882
MFA No. 20048 of 2012
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.Ravindra R. Mane, learned counsel for the
appellant and Sri.P.N.Hosamane, learned counsel for the
respondents.
2. Insurance Company is in appeal challenging the
validity of the judgment and award passed in MVC No.554/2008
on the file of the Member M.A.C.T. No.1, Bagalkot dated
25.07.2011.
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:
Claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor
Vehicles Act for the alleged road traffic accidental injuries that
occurred on 30.08.2007 at 6.00 pm on account of negligent
riding of the driver of TT Unit bearing No.KA-29/T-8404-05.
4. The claim petition was resisted by filing detailed
written statement by the Insurance Company including false
implication of the TT unit in the incident.
5. Claim petition on contest, came to be allowed in a
sum of Rs.94,200/- and fastened the liability on the Insurance
Company as under:
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2882
Amount
1. Pain and sufferings 10,000/-
2. Medical expenses 44,000/-
3. Loss of future income 32,400/-
4. Loss of amenities, nutrition, 7,200/-
diet and attendant charges etc.
TOTAL 94,200/-
6. Being aggrieved by the same, Insurance Company is
in appeal.
7. Sri.Ravindra R. Mane, Learned Counsel for the
appellant, reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal
memorandum contended that there is no involvement of the TT
unit in the incident and as an afterthought, after four months of
the incident, a private complaint came to be filed and said
private complaint was converted into a criminal case and driver
of the TT unit was charge sheeted and medical records would
go to show that the injury has been caused to the claimant on
the right leg of the injured having struck in between the cart
wheel of the bullock cart.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2882
8. Per contra, Sri.P.N.Hosamane, learned counsel
contended that claimant is not the person, who gave the
history and it is his relative, who gave the history. Therefore,
same cannot be blown out of the proportion while accepting the
contentions of the Insurance Company and sought for dismissal
of the appeal.
9. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, this
Court perused the material on record, meticulously.
10. On such perusal of the material on record, it is
crystal clear that the claimant sustained injury but whether at
all the said injury is by virtue of rash and negligent driving of
the driver of the TT unit as aforesaid, is the question that is to
be looked into.
11. In this regard Ex.R.1 is the case sheet of the Hospital
that has been produced by the Insurance Company. In the
case sheet while narrating the history, there is a clear mention
that right leg of the claimant got crashed because it got struck
in between the body of the cart and wheel of the cart.
12. If the claimant is not the person, who gave the
history, nothing prevented the claimant to examine the person,
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2882
who gave the history wherein, he could have deposed before
the Court that in the anxiety he has given a wrong history.
13. No such attempt is made by the claimant. But as an
afterthought, rightly contended by learned counsel for the
appellant, a private complaint came to be filed, four months
later. Based on the said private complaint, police filed charge
sheet against driver of the TT unit.
14. Nowhere in the medical records, till the discharge, the
claimant has chosen to intimate the doctor that he has actually
sustained injury in a road traffic accident. Wound certificate
also does not indicate that the injuries are on account of road
traffic accident.
15. Under such circumstances, fastening the liability on
the Insurance Company is incorrect.
16. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion
that Tribunal has misdirected itself in fastening the liability on
the Insurance Company only on the basis of police records
which needs interference.
17. Hence following:
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2882
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed.
(ii) While maintaining the quantum of
compensation, liability fastened on the
appellant/Insurance Company is hereby set
aside.
(iii) The claimant is entitled to adjudged quantum of
compensation from the owner of the TT unit.
(iv) Amount in deposit is ordered to be returned to
the Insurance Company.
(v) No order as to cost.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KAV
