Karnataka High Court
The Branch Manager vs Sri P M Puttaraju on 9 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:6214
MFA No. 8241 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8241 OF 2013
(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
CHANDANA COMPLEX,
HARSHA MAHAL ROAD,
HASSAN-573 201
REP. BY THE MANAGER,
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD
MOTOR TP CLAIMS HUB,
2ND FLOOR, MAHALAKSHMI
CHAMBERS, 9/2, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-02.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.R. GOVINDARAJN.,ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by BHARATHI
S AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. SRI. P.M. PUTTARAJU
S/O MANJEGOOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/O HANUMANTHAPURA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK - 573 201.
2. SRI.H.C.GIRISH
S/O CHANNAVEERAPPA,
NO.1483, MATHRUSHREE,
NORTHERN EXTENSION, PARK ROAD,
HASSAN - 573 201.
(OWNER OF CAR BEARING
REGN. NO.KA-03/M/4428)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:6214
MFA No. 8241 of 2013
...RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. NAMITHA M. ADVOCATE FOR;
SRI. PRATHEEP K. C. ADVOCATE FOR R1.,;
R2- SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED02.07.2013 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1808/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
ND SESSIONS JUDGE, MACT, HASSAN, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF Rs.1,20,000/- WITH INTERES @ 8% P.A.
FROM THE DATE OF PETITON TILL DEPOSIT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The above appeal is filed by the insurer challenging the
Judgment and award dated 02.07.2013 passed in
MVC.No.1808/2012 by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge
& MACT, Hassan1.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are
referred as per their rank before the Tribunal.
3. The relevant facts necessary for the consideration of
the present appeal are that, claiming compensation for the
injuries sustained in a road traffic accident which alleged to
Hereinafter referred to as Tribunal
NC: 2024:KHC:6214
have occurred on 31.08.2012, the claimant filed the claim
petition. It is the case of the claimant that when he was riding
his motor cycle, a car bearing No.KA-13-M-4428 driven by its
driver in a rash and negligent manner came in a high speed
from behind and hit against the motor cycle being driven by the
claimant. The owner and the insured of the car were arrayed
as Respondent No.1 and 2 before the Tribunal. The claim
proceedings were contested by the insurer.
4. The claimant examined himself as PW-1 and the
doctor as PW-2. The representative of the insurer was
examined as RW-1. Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-10 were marked on behalf
of the claimants and Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3 were marked on behalf
of the insurer. The Tribunal by its judgment and award dated
02.07.2013 allowed the claim petition and awarded the
compensation of an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- together interest
at 8% per annum and directed the insurer to deposit the
compensation awarded. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is
filed by the insurer.
5. The learned counsel for the insurer assailing the
judgment and award passed by the Tribunal submits that in the
NC: 2024:KHC:6214
hospital records, it is mentioned that the accident was caused
due to car bearing No.KA-13-M-4412. However subsequently,
after 2 days in the complaint filed by the claimant, the car
number is mentioned as KA-13-M-4428. That as on the date of
complaint the claimant was allegedly being treated as inpatient
in the hospital. That the hospital in which the claimant was
admitted, was the same hospital where he works as a Manager.
That the Seizure Mahazar as also the motor vehicle report does
not indicate any damages that are caused to the car. Hence,
he submits that the insured vehicle is falsely implicated in the
accident and seeks for allowing of the above appeal and setting
aside of the judgment of the Tribunal.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 -
claimant justifies the award of the Tribunal and seeks for
dismissal of the claim petition.
7. The submissions of both the learned counsels 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 finding of the Tribunal
NC: 2024:KHC:6214
holding that the accident in question as averred in the claim
petition has been proved by the claimant is just and proper ?"
8. The accident occurred on 31.08.2012 at 3.00 p.m.
Immediately after the accident, the claimant was taken to the
SSC Hospital, Hassan and in the MLC register extract (Ex.D-1)
it has been entered as "Alleged H/O RTA near picture palace at
about 3.15 p.m. when the car No.KA-13-M-4412 hit the Two
Wheeler". The complaint has been lodged on 02.09.2012 as is
forthcoming from FIR (EX.P-1). With regard to the reason for
the delay it is stated in the FIR that since the owner of the car
agreed to pay the cost of treatment, the complaint is not
lodged. However it is also relevant to note that the case sheet
(Ex.P-9) discloses that claimant was admitted to hospital on
31.08.2012 and discharged on 04.09.2012. Hence, the only
logical conclusion that is to be construed is that when the
claimant was in the hospital, he went to the police station to
lodge the complaint. It is pertinent to note that the claimant
was working as a Manager in the hospital in which he took
treatment.
NC: 2024:KHC:6214
9. It is further necessary to note that consequent to the
complaint lodged on 02.09.2012, the vehicle was seized on
03.09.2012 as it is forthcoming from the Seizure Mahazar
(Ex.P-5). The motor vehicle accident report (Ex.P-7) discloses
that the requisition was received on 03.09.2012 and in the said
report it is noted that there are no visible damages found on
the car. The Tribunal while appreciating the said aspect has
recorded the finding that it is possible that the vehicle was
repaired during the intervening period of 3 days. The said case
of the vehicle having been repaired has not been putforth by
any of the parties and the said finding is ex-facie erroneous.
10. It is further relevant to note that PW-2 who is the
doctor has admitted that the in the MLC extract of the hospital,
the vehicle number is written as "KA-13-M-4412". PW-1 has
also been cross-examined regarding the discrepancy in the
vehicle number and he admits that in the hospital records, the
vehicle number is written as KA-13-M-4412. However
subsequently he further states that the vehicle number is KA-
13-M-4428. It is relevant to note that there is no explanation
offered by the claimant either in the claim petition or in the
NC: 2024:KHC:6214
affidavit by way of examination-in-chief with regard to the
discrepancy in the vehicle number.
11. The reasons set out in the FIR (Ex.P-1) for delay in
lodging the compliant has not been subsequently stated by the
complainant either in the claim petition or in the affidavit by
way of evidence. The representative of the insurer has been
examined as RW-1, wherein the said aspect of the matter has
been set out in the detail. However, despite RW-1 having been
cross-examined there is no statement that dilutes the
testimony of RW-1 made in his examination-in-chief.
12. It is clear and forthcoming from the aforementioned
factual matrix that there is a discrepancy in the mentioning of
the vehicle number which is alleged to have caused the
accident. The said discrepancy ought to have been explained
by the claimant before the Tribunal at the time of the evidence,
which admittedly has not been done.
13. The learned counsel for Respondent No.1 to 3-
claimants relies on the Judgment of a co-ordinate bench of this
Court in the case of Sri Varadaraju Vs Sri G. Mohan and
NC: 2024:KHC:6214
another2 wherein it has held that delay of four days in the
lodging the complaint is not fatal for considering the claim,
since the claimant was unconscious immediately after the
accident. The factual matrix of the said decision is wholly in-
applicable to the facts of the present case since, admittedly the
claimant in the present case was admittedly conscious
immediately after the accident. Further, the delay that is
sought to be stated in the FIR is not subsequently forthcoming
in the claim proceedings and has not been adequately
explained.
14. Learned counsel for the Appellant relies on the
judgment of this court in the case of Sri Ganesh Achar Vs
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., and another3 wherein this
court has held that in the absence of the claimant proving that
the accident has occurred in the manner stated in the claim
petition, the Tribunal ought not to have allowed the claim
petition.
MFA.No.1219/2012 (MV) dated 25.03.2022
MFA.No.8145/2012 dated 03.10.2023,
NC: 2024:KHC:6214
15. In the present case also, it is clear and forthcoming
that there are various discrepancies which are contrary to the
averments made in the claim petition as to the involvement of
the insured vehicle in the accident. The insurer has been
successful in demonstrating the said discrepancies and the
claimant is not been able to explain the same as noticed above.
The tribunal without appreciating all the material on record has
held that the claimant has proved that the insured vehicle
caused the accident in question. The said finding of the
Tribunal is liable to be interfered with. The claimant has failed
in demonstrating that the accident has occurred as averred in
the claim petition. In view of the aforementioned, the question
framed for consideration is answered in the affirmative.
16. Hence, the following order is passed:
ORDER
i) The above appeal is Allowed.
ii) The judgment and award dated 02.07.2013 passed
in MVC.No.1808/2012 by the II Addl. District and
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6214
Sessions Judge and Additional MACT, Hassan is set
aside.
iii) The claim petition in MVC.No.1808/2012 on the file
of the II Addl. District & Sessions Judge and Addl.
MACT at Hassan is dismissed.
iv) The amount deposited by the Appellant in the above
appeal be refunded to the appellant.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
TS
