Karnataka High Court
Mr. Naveen Kumar vs The Manager on 12 January, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:1866
MFA No. 2505 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
MFA NO. 2505 OF 2019 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
MR. NAVEEN KUMAR
S/O MALIYAPPA, R/AT HASIGALA
VILLAGE AND POST, HOSAKOTE
TALUK BANGALORE DIST. ...APPELLANT
(BY SMT.P.V.KALPANA, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE MANAGER
IFFCO TOKIO GEN. INS. CO.LTD.
SHANTHI TOWERS, NO.141, 5TH FLOOR
EAST OF NGEF LAYOUT, KASTURINAGAR
BANGALORE-560 043
2. R VINAY KUMAR
S/O RAMANJINAPPA
R/AT DODDAHULLURU VILLAGE
DASARAHALLI POST
HOSAKOTE TALUK
Digitally signed by BANGALORE DIST. ...RESPONDENTS
MALA K N
Location: HIGH COURT (BY SRI.B. PRADEEP, ADV. FOR
OF KARNATAKA SRI.N. MURALIDHAR, ADV. FOR R1;
R2 SERVED, UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.12.2018
PASSED IN MVC NO.6996/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII
ADDITIONAL JUDGE,, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND
MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-15), DISMISSING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:1866
MFA No. 2505 of 2019
JUDGMENT
In this appeal, the petitioner has challenged the
judgment and award dated 13.12.2018 in
M.V.C.No.6996/2017 passed by the Court of Small
Causes and M.A.C.T., Bengaluru (SCCH-15) ('the
Tribunal' for short).
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties
shall be referred to as per their status before the
Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are, on 11.11.2017 at
about 05:30 pm while the petitioner riding motor
cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-40/V-6240 near Dairy of
Devanayakanahalli, Channarayapatna, Devanahalli
Taluk, hit by an Eicher Tempo vehicle bearing
Reg.No.KA-07/A-1616, injuring him. After taking
treatment at Silicon City Hospital, Hoskote, he
approached the Tribunal for grant of compensation
of Rs.14,00,000/-. Claim was opposed by the
Insurance Company. The Tribunal after taking the
NC: 2024:KHC:1866
evidence, dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved by
the same, the petitioner has filed this appeal on
various grounds.
4. Heard the arguments of Smt. P.V. Kalpana,
learned counsel for the petitioner and
Sri. B. Pradeep, learned counsel on behalf of
Sri. N. Muralidhar, learned counsel for the Insurance
Company.
5. It is the contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner that on 11.11.2017 when the petitioner
was taken to the hospital, history furnished that he
was hit by the canter while riding the motor cycle
and sustained the injuries; the petitioner was
impatient till 24.11.2017. His brother has filed
complaint on 16.11.2017 after coming to know that
the Police have not registered the case; before the
Tribunal, evidence has been placed in proof of the
accident, but the Tribunal on the ground that the
accident is not proven, dismissed the claim petition;
NC: 2024:KHC:1866
huge money was spent towards treatment, it is not a
fake or fit case, rather it is a genuine case where the
Tribunal doubted the veracity of the accident. He
further contended that if an opportunity is provided,
the petitioner shall prove the accident by examining
eye witnesses and also the pillion rider who was
travelling along with the petitioner and she sought
for remand.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance
Company has contended that there is a delay of 5
days in filing the complaint, leading to suspicion
whether the canter vehicle was involved in the
accident or not. Nothing was furnished to prove the
accident by furnishing vehicle number to the
hospital; after registering M.L.C., no intimation was
sent to the Police immediately. After forethought
with 5 days of delay, complaint was filed; no eye
witnesses were examined to prove the accident, the
Tribunal has disbelieved the version of the petitioner
NC: 2024:KHC:1866
and dismissed the claim and he supported the
impugned judgment.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the
arguments addressed on both sides and also perused
the materials on record.
8. The petitioner alleges that the accident was
on 11.11.2017, whereas the complaint was filed on
16.11.2017. The petitioner has relied upon the case
sheet pertaining to Silicon City Hospital, Hoskote as
per Ex.P13 which thus reads as:
" Alleged History of RTA while bike raiding hitted by
canter near Devanayakanahalli @ 6.30 p.m. on
11/11/17"
9. The accident took place at 06:30 pm, within
1½ hour, the petitioner was in the hospital and
furnished history of accident. Unfortunately, the
petitioner himself was examined before the Tribunal
and no eye witnesses were examined to prove the
accident. In view of the delay in filing the complaint,
the Tribunal expected the petitioner to prove the
NC: 2024:KHC:1866
accident by examining independent witnesses, but
no independent witnesses were brought before the
Tribunal, which led to the dismissal of claim petition.
10. There is no material to show that M.L.C.
intimation was sent to the Police by the Hospital.
These are the materials which require to explain the
accident. The Tribunal has not assessed the
compensation. Hence, it is a case for an opportunity
for the petitioner to establish the accident by
examining independent witnesses, concerned Police
Officers and Medical Officers regarding M.L.C.
intimation, thereupon the Tribunal to decide the case
on merits in accordance with law, hence it is a case
for remand. Hence, the appeal merits consideration,
in the result, the following:
ORDER
i) Appeal is allowed.
ii) Impugned judgment and award is set
aside.
NC: 2024:KHC:1866
iii) The matter is remanded back to the
Tribunal to the stage of evidence with a
request to afford opportunity to both
sides to lead evidence and to dispose of
the claim in accordance with law.
iv) Without further notice, parties to
appear before the Tribunal on
05.03.2024.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PA
CT:HS
