Karnataka High Court
Mangala W/O Mohan Harwadekar vs Vinod Chudamani Gaonkar on 11 January, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:839
MFA No. 24829 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 24830 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.24829 OF 2012 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.24830 OF 2012
IN M. F. A. NO.24829 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
SMT. MANGALA W/O. MOHAN HARWADEKAR,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHER,
R/O: HARWADA, TALUK: ANKOLA,
DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. GANAPATI M.BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. VINOD CHUDAMANI GAONKAR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: POOJGERI, BASGOD, TALUK: ANKOLA.
2. NATIOANAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
Digitally
signed by FIRST FLOOR, 1628, KAIKINI ROAD,
SAMREEN
SAMREEN AYUB KARWAR, TQ: KARWAR-581 301,
AYUB DESHNUR
DESHNUR Date: REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAER,
2024.01.29
15:30:23 POLICY NO.602504/31/05/6300005023,
+0530
DT:08/11/2005.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S.ARANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION.173 (1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED: 26.11.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.61/2007
ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, (ITINERARY
SITTING AT ANKOLA) DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED
UNDER SECTION 166 OF MV ACT.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:839
MFA No. 24829 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 24830 of 2012
IN M. F. A. NO.24830 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
KUMARI. RAJESHWARI
D/O. MOHAN T.HARWADEKAR,
AGE: 16 YEARS, STUDENT, BY HER FATHER AND
NATURAL GUARDIAN, MOHAN T.HARWADEKAR,
AGE: 48 YEARS,
R/O: HARWADA, TALUK: ANKOLA,
DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. GANAPATI M.BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. VINOD CHUDAMANI GAONKAR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: POOJGERI, BASGOD, TQ: ANKOLA.
2. NATIOANAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
FIRST FLOOR, 1628, KAIKINI ROAD,
KARWAR, TQ: KARWAR-581 301,
REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAER,
POLICY NO.602504/31/05/6300005023,
DT:08/11/2005.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S.ARANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION.173 (1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED: 26.11.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.62/2007
ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, (ITINERARY
SITTING AT ANKOLA) DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED
UNDER SECTION 166 OF MV ACT.
THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS, COMING ON
FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:839
MFA No. 24829 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 24830 of 2012
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.Ganapati M Bhat, learned counsel for the
appellants and Sri.Rajashekhar S Arani, learned counsel
for the respondent - Insurance Company.
2. Though these appeals are listed for admission,
with the consent of both the parties, they are taken up for
final disposal.
3. These two appeals are preferred challenging the
judgment and award passed in MVC No.61/2007 and MVC
No.62/2007 on the file of Additional Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, sitting at Ankola dated 26.11.2011.
4. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for
disposal of these appeals are as under:
Three claim petitions in all came to be filed
contending that on 04.02.2006 there was a road traffic
accident involving auto rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-
30/6603 by the claimants/injured persons seeking
compensation.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:839
5. Upon service of notice, the claim petitions were
contested by filing written statement stating that there is
false implication of the alleged auto rickshaw in the
accident inasmuch as the FIR mentions about the
involvement of auto rickshaw bearing No.KA-14/515.
6. The Tribunal after raising necessary issues and
after considering oral and documentary evidence placed on
record by the parties, dismissed the claim petitions holding
that the claimants have falsely implicated auto rickshaw
bearing Reg.No.KA-30/6603.
7. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimants
have preferred these two appeals.
8. Sri.Ganapati M Bhat, learned counsel for the
appellants reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal
memorandums, vehemently contended that the Tribunal
was too technical in appreciating the material evidence
placed on record and has wrongly dismissed the claim
petitions and sought for allowing the appeals.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:839
9. He points out that for the mistake of the data
entry or computer operator in the police station, the
claimants should not suffer and therefore sought for
allowing the appeal.
10. He also contended that involvement of auto
rickshaw is not disputed by the owner of the auto rickshaw
nor the driver and therefore the claim petitions ought to
have been allowed.
11. Per contra, Sri.Rajashekhar S Arani, learned
counsel representing the Insurance Company of auto
rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-30/6603 supported the
impugned judgments.
12. He also points out that though it has been
argued on behalf of the claimants that the mistake has
crept in while entering the vehicle number on account of
improper feeding of data by the computer operator in the
police station, the contents of FIR has been rightly
appreciated by the learned Judge in the Tribunal in
NC: 2024:KHC-D:839
clarifying the position that the contents of complaint are in
manual typing and not computer generated. As such, the
very theory put forward by the claimants in the appeals is
incorrect and sought for dismissal of the appeals.
13. In the light of the rival contentions of the
parties, this Court perused the material on record
meticulously.
14. On such perusal of the material on record, it is
seen that entire case of claimants surrounds around the
document Ex.P.2 which is nothing but the certified copy of
the complaint. According to the claimants, the computer
operator who prepared Ex.P.2 used the method of copying
the complaint averments of some other case and pasted
the same. While so doing, same vehicle number has been
wrongly mentioned that of some other complaint and
therefore the police have registered FIR based on Ex.P.2.
In the FIR marked at Ex.P.1 Auto Rickshaw bearing
Reg.No.KA-30/6603 is not shown and therefore, the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:839
claimants should not be nonsuited for the mistake of the
computer operator.
15. In this regard, the Tribunal in paragraph No.14
has made a detailed discussion by perusing the contents of
Ex.P.2. The Tribunal formed a definite opinion that the
contentions urged on behalf of the claimants cannot be
countenanced in law inasmuch as Ex.P.2 is typed written
complaint and not computer generated complaint.
16. This Court in order to appreciate the
contentions urged on behalf of the appellants, again
bestowed its attention to Ex.P.2. On perusal of the same,
it is seen that Ex.P.2 is prepared as per the instructions of
the complainant on a manual typewriter and not the
computer. As such, the theory put forward on behalf of
claimants that because of the mistake done by the
computer operator the vehicle number has been wrongly
mentioned cannot be accepted.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:839
17. On perusal of Ex.P.2, what has been mentioned
in the complaint is auto rickshaw KA-14/515. Based on the
complaint, police registered the FIR vide Ex.P.1. However,
while drawing the spot mahazar, auto rickshaw bearing
Reg.No.KA-30/6603 has been inserted. How there can be
a difference between FIR, complaint and spot mahazar is a
question that remains unanswered. More so, in the
absence of any further statement of complainant or
eyewitness.
18. Even on the other documents, namely, Ex.P.5
which is wound certificate, except mentioning that the
injured have sustained injury on account of road traffic
accident, no details as to what is the vehicle in which the
injured were travelling and what is its registered number
and other details are not forthcoming.
19. The Motor Vehicle Inspector has inspected the
auto rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-30/6603. How the police
could seize auto rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-30/6603
when the complaint itself specifically mentions that auto
NC: 2024:KHC-D:839
rickshaw involved in the accident is bearing Reg.No.KA-
14/515 is a question that remains unanswered.
20. Further, the claimants did not choose to
examine the police personnel to cure the alleged
discrepancy in the vehicle number so as to establish their
case.
21. On the contrary, the material evidence on
record would go to show that the vehicle bearing
Reg.No.KA-30/6603 was not at all involved in the accident
and only with an intention to lay a false claim as auto
rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-30/6603 possessed proper
insurance, deviation has taken place and the amendment
came to be allowed by impleading auto rickshaw bearing
Reg.No.KA-30/6603.
22. It is also pertinent to note that mahazar is
dated 05.02.2006, whereas, the Motor Vehicle Inspector
has examined the auto rickshaw bearing No.KA-30/6603 in
the precincts of the police station on 04.02.2006 itself.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:839
Even before the said auto rickshaw could be seized by the
police authorities, how could the Motor Vehicle Inspector
examine the said auto rickshaw in the precincts of the
police station is also a question that remains unanswered.
23. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned
judgment and award does not call for any interference as
the same is based on proper analysis of the material
placed on record.
24. In view of the foregoing discussion, following
order is passed:
ORDER
(i) Admission declined.
(ii) Appeals are mertiless and dismissed.
(iii) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
