Karnataka High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Surendra Jadhav S/O Ramachandra on 12 January, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:927
MFA No. 24046 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 24047 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.24046 OF 2012 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.24047 OF 2012
IN M. F. A. NO.24046 OF 2012:
BETWEEN:
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
R/BY ASSISTANT MANAGER,
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
C1/24, SHAH BUILDING, ASHOK NAGAR,
NIPANI, TQ. CHIKKODI, DIST.BELAGAVI.
REGIONAL OFFICE, LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.V. YAJI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI. SURENDRA JADHAV
S/O. RAMACHANDRA,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST/MILK VENDING,
Digitally
R/O: NOOL, TQ: GADAHINGLAJI,
signed by
SAMREEN
DIST: KOLHAPUR, STATE: MAHARASTRA STATE.
SAMREEN AYUB
AYUB DESHNUR
Date:
2. SHRI. MALLAPPA GIJAWANI
DESHNUR 2024.01.29
15:28:41
S/O. KALLAPPA,
+0530 AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O: KURANI, TQ: HUKKERI.
DIST: BELAGAVI.
3. SHRI. T.K. KELAGERI,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE POLICE DEPATMENT
R/O: HATTARKI, TQ: HUKKERI.
DIST: BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.S. YALIGAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 SERVED;
SRI. MURUGENDRA S.WANTAMURI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:927
MFA No. 24046 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 24047 of 2012
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:04-
07-2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.2924/2010 ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING
OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT AND MEMBER, MACT, HUKKERI, AWARDING
THE COMPENSATION OF RS.17,200/-WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6%
P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION.
IN M. F. A. NO.24047 OF 2012:
BETWEEN:
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
R/BY ASSISTANT MANAGER,
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
C1/24, SHAH BUILDING, ASHOK NAGAR,
NIPANI, TQ. CHIKKODI, DIST.BELAGAVI.
REGIONAL OFFICE, LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.V. YAJI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI. IRANNA IKKALMARI
S/O. SIDDAPPA,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O: HATTARGI, TQ: HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. SHRI. MALLAPPA GIJAWANI
S/O. KALLAPPA,
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O: KURANI, TQ: HUKKERI.
DIST: BELAGAVI.
3. SHRI. T.K. KELAGERI,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE POLICE DEPARTMENT
R/O: HATTARGI, TQ: HUKKERI.
DIST: BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.S. YALIGAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 SERVED;
SRI. MURUGENDRA S.WANTAMURI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:927
MFA No. 24046 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 24047 of 2012
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:
04-07-2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.2923/2010 ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING
OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT AND MEMBER, MACT, HUKKERI, AWARDING
THE COMPENSATION OF RS.1,11,840/-WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6%
P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Though the appeals are listed for admission, by consent
of parties, both the appeals are taken up for disposal.
2. Heard Shri. S. V. Yaji, learned counsel for the
appellant-Insurance Company, Shri. S.S. Yaligar representing
Shri. Mrutyunjay Tata Bangi, learned counsel for respondents.
3. These two appeals are filed against the judgment
and award passed in MVC Nos.2923/2010 and 2924/2023
dated 04.07.2012 where under, injured persons namely Iranna
and Surendra laid a claim for awarding suitable compensation
in respect of the injuries sustained by them in a road traffic
accident occurred on 08.04.2006 at about 10.00 a.m., involving
motor cycles bearing registration Nos.KA-22/Q-9177 and KA-
23/R-4942.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:927
4. According to the claim petition averments, the
accident has occurred when the injured persons were travelling
on the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-22/Q-9177 on
account of rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motor
cycle bearing registration No.KA-23/R-4942.
5. The claim petitions were resisted by the Insurance
Company by filing necessary written statement.
6. The Tribunal raised necessary issues. Thereafter in
order to prove the case of the claimants, claimants got
examined themselves as PWs.1 and 3 and doctors who treated
them were examined as PWs.2 and 4.
7. The claimants placed on record 16 documents which
were exhibited and marked at Ex.P.1 to P.16 comprising of FIR,
complaint, sport mahazar, hand sketch, wound certificates,
charge sheet, IMV report, Insurance policy, X-ray film.
8. On the contrary, the respondent produced the
Insurance policy on behalf of the Insurance Company which
was marked at Ex.R.1 and no oral evidence was adduced.
9. On conclusion of recording of evidence, learned
Trial Judge heard the parties in detail and allowed the claim
petition in part in granting a sum of Rs.1,11,840/- in respect of
NC: 2024:KHC-D:927
claim in MVC No.2923/2010 and a sum of Rs.17,200/- in
respect of claim in MVC No.2924/2010 with interest at the rate
of 6% per annum from the date of petitions till its realization.
10. Being aggrieved by the same, the Insurance
Company is in appeal.
11. It is also pertinent to note that the claimants have
filed two appeals challenging the quantum of compensation in
MFA Nos.23367/2013 and 23368/2013 and both the appeals
came to be dismissed for non prosecution.
12. Shri. S.S. Yaligar, learned counsel representing the
claimants in those cases submitted that despite best efforts
the matter could not be restored as there was no assistance
and instructions from the claimants.
13. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Insurance
Company alone have been taken up for consideration.
14. Sri. S. V. Yaji, learned counsel for the appellant
reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum
contended that taking advantage of the fact that owner of the
motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-22/Q-9177 being a
police constable, working in the same police station a case
came to be registered and falsely implicated the said motor
NC: 2024:KHC-D:927
cycle only to allow the claimants to lay a false claim on the said
motor cycle and said aspect of the matter has not been
properly considered by the learned Trial Judge and sought for
allowing the appeal.
15. He also contended that the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal in respect of claim in
MVC No.2923/2010 is on the higher side inasmuch as the
monthly income that was required to be computed by the
Tribunal in the absence of proper proof of income notionally
was in a sum of Rs.3,750/- where as the Tribunal has taken a
sum of Rs.4,500/- as the monthly income of the injured and
therefore quantum of compensation needs reduction.
16. Insofar as the quantum of compensation awarded in
MVC No.2924/2010, Shri. S. V. Yaji, learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that the injured therein has suffered only
simple injuries and therefore granting the compensation in a
sum of Rs.17,200/- is on the higher side and sought for
allowing the appeal.
17. Per contra, Shri. S.S. Yaligar representing Shri.
Mrutyunjay Tata Bangi, learned counsel for respondents
opposed the appeals grounds and contended that but for the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:927
non co-operation of the claimants, the claim of respondents
would have been considered by this Court for enhancement. In
such event, claimants would be entitled to enhanced
compensation as there is a meager compensation awarded by
the Tribunal and sought for dismissal of the appeals filed by the
Insurance Company.
18. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, this
Court perused the material on record meticulously.
19. On such perusal of the material on record, it is
crystal clear that police have filed the charge sheet against the
rider of the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-23/R-4942.
The said vehicle was duly insured.
20. According to the Insurance Company, the charge
sheet should have been filed against the rider of the motor
cycle bearing registration No.KA-22/Q-9177. To establish the
said aspect of the matter there is no material evidence placed
on record by the Insurance Company. No officer of the
Insurance Company is examined on behalf of the Insurance
Company to probablize the said defence.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:927
21. Further, the charge sheet filed by the police on the
rider of the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-23/R-4942.
He did not choose to challenge the same.
22. According to the Insurance Company there is an
active collusion of the owner of the motor cycle bearing
registration No.KA-22/Q-9177 and the claimants. If that was
so, private investigation should have been conducted by the
Insurance Company and some material should have been
placed before the Court so as to advance the case of the
Insurance Company. No such effort has been made before the
Trial Court.
23. As such, for the first time before this Court the
grounds urged on behalf of the Insurance company that there
is false implication of the vehicle without there being any
material evidence placed on record cannot be countenanced in
law. The matter is not yet admitted though it is of the year
2012. Hence said contention is rejected.
24. With regard to the contentions urged on the behalf
of the Insurance Company in regard to the quantum of
compensation, no doubt there is some force with regard to the
computation of monthly income. However on considering the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:927
quantum of compensation assessed by the Tribunal, no amount
is awarded on the ground of loss of amenities. So also on the
head of attendant charges only a sum of Rs.3,500/- is awarded.
25. No amount is awarded on the head of loss of
income during the laid up period. So also there is no
compensation awarded with regard to the conveyance and
other charges.
26. Thus, reducing the quantum of compensation on
the head of loss of income and enhancing the quantum of
compensation on the other heads would be a futile exercise
having regard to the fact that the claim is of the year 2006.
27. Accordingly, no case is made out for admitting the
matter for further consideration.
28. Hence, the following order is passed:
ORDER
(i) Admission declined. Appeals are
dismissed.
(ii) No order as to costs.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:927
(iii) Amount in deposit is ordered to be
transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement in
accordance with law.
(iv) Balance sum if any, shall be
deposited by the Insurance Company within a
period of four weeks from today.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SMM
