Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager, National Ins. ... vs Mallawwa W/O Basvannappa Jamanal on 12 January, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:815
MFA No. 23761 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.23761 OF 2012 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPMANY LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE-7 (350700) 50-JANPATH,
NEW DELHI-110001 THROUGH ITS OFFICE
THE BRANCH MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.
LTD. SAMADEVI GALLI, BELAGAVI, NOW
REPRESENTED BY ITS. DY. MANAGER REGIONAL
OFFICE, HUBLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S.ARANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. MALLAWWA W/O. BASVANNAPPA JAMANAL,
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: MALLAPUR, K.N. TQ: BAILHONGAL,
Digitally DIST: BELAGAVI.
signed by
SAMREEN
SAMREEN AYUB
2. SHANTAWWA BASAVANNAPPA JAMANAL,
AYUB DESHNUR
DESHNUR Date: AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
2024.01.29
15:30:03 R/O: MALLAPUR, K.N. TALUK: BAILHONGAL,
+0530
DIST: BELAGAVI.
3. MALLAPPA BASAVANAPPA JAMANAL,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: MALLAPUR, K.N. TALUK: BAILHONGAL,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
4. GANGAPPA BASAVANNAPPA JAMANAL,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: MALLAPUR, K.N. TALUK: BAILHONGAL,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:815
MFA No. 23761 of 2012
5. SHRI. MOHAMMEDSAB B. PATHAN,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: DHUPADAL, POST: KARLAKATTI,
VEERABHADRA NAGAR, BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HANAMANT R. LATUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R4;
NOTICE TO R5 SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DTD:19-04-2012 PASSED IN MVC.NO.216/2010
ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER,
ADDL. MACT, BAILHONGAL, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION
OF RS.1,99,900/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6%
P.A.,SHALL BE DEPOSITED WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM THE
DATE OF THE ORDER.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.Rajashekhar S Arani, learned counsel for
the appellant - Insurance Company and Sri.Hanamant R
Latur, learned counsel for the respondents - claimants.
2. The present appeal is directed against the
judgment and award passed in MVC No.216/2010 dated
NC: 2024:KHC-D:815
19.04.2012 on the file of the Additional Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Bailhongal.
3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for
disposal of this appeal are as under:
3.1 The claimants filed a claim petition under
Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation
from the owner of the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-24/J-
6726 and the Insurance Company which insured the said
motorcycle.
3.2 The claimants based their claim on the ground
that on 24.06.2009 at about 5.30 p.m. Basavanneppa met
with a road traffic accident involving motorcycle bearing
Reg.No.KA-24/J-6726 and sustained head injury and other
injuries. He was shifted to the hospital and he was treated.
Thereafter, he had been discharged. A month later, he lost
his life on account of accidental injuries and thus sought
for suitable compensation.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:815
3.3 Claim petition was resisted by filing necessary
written statement. The Tribunal after raising necessary
issues, recorded the evidence of one of the claimants and
another witness as PW.1 and PW.2 and relied on 41
documents which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to
P.41 on behalf of claimants and Ex.R.1 which is the
insurance policy and allowed the claim petition in part and
granted compensation in a sum of Rs.1,99,900/- with
interest at 6% per annum.
4. Being aggrieved by the same, the Insurance
Company is in appeal.
5. Reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal
memorandum, Sri.Rajashekhar S Arani, learned counsel
representing the Insurance Company vehemently
contended that the approach of the Tribunal in granting
compensation to the claimants for loss of life of
Basavanneppa when admittedly he has been treated
properly in the hospital and discharged from the hospital
NC: 2024:KHC-D:815
successfully after curing the injuries, is incorrect and
sought for allowing the appeal.
6. He further contended that the claimants failed
to establish that Basavanneppa died on account of
accidental injuries.
7. In other words, he emphasizes before this Court
that there is no nexus between the death of Basavanneppa
and accidental injuries sustained by him especially in view
of discharge card filed by the claimants which is marked at
Ex.P.7 and sought for allowing the appeal.
8. He also contended that the Tribunal ought not
to have allowed compensation in a sum of Rs.1,99,900/-.
9. Per contra, Sri.Hanamant R Latur supported the
impugned judgment by contending that since charge sheet
came to be filed by the police as on the date of death of
Basavanneppa, there was no scope for any further
evidence to be placed on record by the claimants by way
NC: 2024:KHC-D:815
of placing post-mortem report or actual cause of death of
Basavanneppa and sought for dismissal of the appeal.
10. He further contended that Basavanneppa died
on 17.08.2009 which is a circumstance that has been
considered by the Tribunal while forming an opinion that
there existed nexus between the death of Basavanneppa
and accidental injuries sustained by him and sought for
dismissal of the appeal.
11. In view of the rival contentions of the parties,
this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
12. On such perusal of the material on record, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the accident
involving motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-24/J-6726 and
Basavanneppa sustaining accidental injuries is sufficiently
established by the claimants.
13. Ex.P.7 is the discharge card. As rightly
contended by Sri.Rajashekhar S Arani that when there is
discharge card placed on record by the claimants
NC: 2024:KHC-D:815
themselves, it should be presumed that Basavanneppa
was cured of all injuries. However, Basavanneppa died on
17.08.2009 and his body was not sent for post-mortem
examination on the ground that charge sheet had already
been filed in respect of the incident by the police and there
was no scope for further post-mortem examination.
14. What exactly is the cause of death is a question
that was to be determined by the Tribunal. In the absence
of any documentary evidence on record with regard to
cause of death, other oral and documentary evidence
placed on record by the parties in this regard is to be
appreciated.
15. One of the claimants and eyewitnesses to the
accident are examined as PW.1 and PW.2. This Court
meticulously considered the cross-examination of those
witnesses. In such cross-examination, Insurance Company
has not even primarily suggested that there was no nexus
between the death of Basavanneppa and accidental
injuries. What has been questioned by the Insurance
NC: 2024:KHC-D:815
Company is about earning capacity of Basavanneppa and
his age.
16. No oral evidence is also placed on record on
behalf of the Insurance Company by examining any of the
officers of the Insurance Company.
17. In the absence of any contra evidence placed
on record, the Tribunal appreciating the case of the
claimants that there existed nexus between the death of
Basavanneppa and accidental injuries sustained by him on
account of road traffic accident that occurred on
24.06.2009, is a plausible and probable inference in the
facts and circumstances of the case.
18. Therefore, this Court does not find force in any
one of the grounds urged on behalf of the Insurance
Company.
19. In view of the foregoing discussions, following
order is passed:
NC: 2024:KHC-D:815
ORDER
(i) Appeal is meritless and is hereby dismissed.
(ii) No order as to cost.
(iii) Amount in deposit, if any, is ordered to be
transmitted to the concerned Tribunal
forthwith for disbursement.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SH
