Karnataka High Court
The Branch Manager vs Chikkanna on 12 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:5897
MFA No. 8209 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8209 OF 2014 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
1. THE BRANCH MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD
NO.1119/B, MC ROAD
MANDYA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
THE REGIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD
MOTOR T P DEPARTMENT
KRISHI BHAVAN, 5TH FLOOR
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE-560001
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. P B RAJU., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. CHIKKANNA
S/O MAYIGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
Digitally signed
by BHARATHI R/O HONAKERE VILLAGE
S HONAKERE HOBLI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF NAGAMANGALA TALUK
KARNATAKA
MANDYA DISTRICT 571432
2. SRIKANTASWAMY
S/O CHIKKAMAYIGAIAH
MAJOR IN AGE
R/O HONAKERE VILLAGE
HONAKERE HOBLI
NAGAMANGALA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT 571432
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H K HONNEGOWDA., ADVOCATE FOR R1
R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:5897
MFA No. 8209 of 2014
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.8.2014 PASSED IN MVC
NO.64/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT,
NAGAMANGALA, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.2,80,000/-
WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM 31.10.2013 TILL PAYMENT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The above appeal is filed by the insurer challenging the
judgment and award dated 28.8.2014 passed in MVC
No.64/2007 by the Senior Civil Judge an MACT,
Nagamangala1.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein
are referred as per their rank before the Tribunal.
3. It is the case of the claimant that on 8.12.2006
when he was returning home, a tractor trailer bearing
No.KA-11/T.5859 and 5860 being driven in a rash and
negligent manner hit the claimant causing the accident in
question, in which he sustained grievous injuries. Claiming
Hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'
NC: 2024:KHC:5897
compensation for the same, the claimant filed a claim
petition arraying the owner and insurer of the said offending
vehicle as respondents. The insurer entered appearance
before the Tribunal and filed its statement of objections and
contested the case of the claimant.
4. The claimant examined himself as PW.1. Exs.P1
to P8 and Exs.R1 to R19 were marked in evidence. The
Tribunal by its judgment and award dated 28.8.2014 allowed
the claim petition and awarded a compensation of
`2,80,000/- with interest at 6% pa. Being aggrieved, the
present appeal is filed by the insurer.
5. Learned counsel for the insurer assailing the
judgment and award passed by the Tribunal contends that
the claimant was traveling as an unauthorized passenger in
the tractor trailer and when the accident occurred as many
as 30 persons were traveling in the tractor trailer and the
case putforth by the claimant that the accident occurred
when he was walking on the road is false. He further
submits that the material with regard to the occurrence of
the accident where there were about 30 people traveling has
NC: 2024:KHC:5897
been placed before the Tribunal as also material to
demonstrate that the claimant had sustained injuries due to
fall from the tractor. Hence, he seeks for allowing of the
above appeal and dismissal of the claim petition.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 -
claimant justifies the judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal and seeks for dismissal of the above appeal filed by
the insurer.
7. The submissions of both the learned counsel 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 Tribunal was
justified in allowing the claim petition and awarding
compensation?
8. It is forthcoming from the claim petition that the
claimant has averred that when he was walking on the road
the insured tractor trailer came and hit him causing the
accident in question. The manner of occurrence of the
accident was contested by the insurer. The Tribunal noticing
NC: 2024:KHC:5897
this aspect of the matter has recorded a finding that during
the course of cross-examination of PW.1 the insurer had
made a suggestion that when he was traveling in the tractor
trailer as an unauthorized passenger the accident has
occurred, which suggestion was denied by PW.1. The
Tribunal further noticed that the newspaper clippings were
produced as Exs.R16 and R17 wherein, it was reported that
in view of the tractor trailer turning turtle four persons died
at the spot and 15 persons sustained injuries. The Tribunal
further noticed that in the MLC register extract which was
marked as Ex.R18 in front of the name of some of the
injured it is noted that they had sustained injuries while they
were traveling in the tractor and such a note was not made
in front of the name of the claimant.
9. It is forthcoming from a re-appreciation of Ex.R18
i.e., the extract of the accident register that as against the
name of the present claimant, entry No.213521 is made and
it is mentioned as "H/of fall from the tractor trailer at 5 pm.,
near Nagamangala".
NC: 2024:KHC:5897
10. In view of the aforementioned, it is clear that
having regard to the specific noting against the name of the
claimant in the accident register that he has sustained injury
due to fall from the tractor trailer, the case purfroth by the
claimant in the claim petition that he sustained injuries when
he was walking on the road is erroneous.
11. The claimant has not adduced any evidence to
explain the said entry that is made at Ex.R18. The Tribunal
has not upheld the case putforth by the insurer solely on the
ground that a noting is not there against the name of the
claimant in the MLC register extract (Ex.R18). Having regard
to the fact that the noting is forthcoming as noticed above,
the contention of the insurer is required to be upheld.
Hence, 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;
NC: 2024:KHC:5897
ii) The judgment and award dated 28.8.2014
passed in MVC No.64/2007 by the Senior Civil
Judge an MACT, Nagamangala, is set aside;
iii) MVC No.64/2007 filed by the claimant on
the file of the Senior Civil Judge and MACT,
Nagamangala, is dismissed;
iv) The amount deposited by the appellant be
refunded to the appellant.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ND
