Karnataka High Court
Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Gopinath Reddy on 2 January, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:122
MFA No. 8718 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8718 OF 2013 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
1. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD.,
D O NO.11, #663, I FLOOR
I MAIN, DEFENCE COLONY
100 FEET ROAD, INDIRANAGAR,
I PHASE, BANGALORE 560038
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGIONAL MANAGER
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD
REGIONAL OFFICE, #44/45,
LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX,
RESIDENCY ROAD,
BANGALORE 560025
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. A N KRISHNA SWAMY., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by BHARATHI AND:
S
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 1. GOPINATH REDDY
KARNATAKA S/O VENKATAREDDY
NOW AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/A #142/1, 8TH CROSS
BHUVANESHWARINAGAR
MARATHAHALLI POST
BANGALORE 560037
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KSRTC, SHANTHINAGAR
K H ROAD,BANGALORE 560027
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA K N, ADVOCATE FOR R1
SRI. G LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:122
MFA No. 8718 of 2013
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.3.2013 PASSED IN MVC
NO.4593/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE 22ND ACMM, 24TH ADDITIONAL
SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MACT, BANGALORE, AWARDING A
COMPENSATION OF RS.1,35,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM
THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT OF
COMPENSATION AMOUNT IN THE TRIBUNAL.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The above appeal is filed by the insurer being aggrieved
by the judgment and award dated 16.3.2013 passed in MVC
No.4593/2010 by the XXII ACMM, XXIV Additional Small
Causes Judge, MACT, Bangalore1.
2. The relevant facts necessary for consideration of
the present appeal are that on 13.1.2010, the first respondent2
who was travelling in the KSRTC bus which was insured with
the appellant alighted from the bus and was standing on the
footpath, when the bus driver suddenly applied the break for
the purpose of avoiding a divider and reversed the bus, as a
result of which the back side of the bus hit the left leg of the
Hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'
Hereinafter referred to as the 'claimant'
NC: 2024:KHC:122
claimant, causing the accident in question. Seeking
compensation for the injuries sustained in the said accident, the
claimant filed a claim petition before the Tribunal.
3. The KSRTC as well as the appellant/insurer entered
appearance before the Tribunal and contested the said
proceedings. The claimant examined himself as PW.1, another
witness as PW.2. The doctor was examined as PW.3. Exs.P1 to
P12 were marked in evidence. On behalf of the respondents,
the driver of the bus was examined as RW.1. The official of the
insurer was examined as RW.2 and the Mechanical Supervisor
of the KSRTC was examined as RW.3. Exs.R1 to R8 were
marked in evidence. The Tribunal vide judgment and award
dated 16.3.2013 partly allowed the claim petition and awarded
a compensation in a sum of `1,35,000/- together with interest
at 6% pa., and directed the owner and insurer to pay the
compensation awarded. Being aggrieved, the insurer has filed
the above appeal.
4. The sole contention urged by the appellant -
insurer in the above appeal is that there was no complaint
lodged by the claimant before the police authorities and having
NC: 2024:KHC:122
regard to Rule 232 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules,
19893, the claim petition cannot be instituted without there
being an FIR registered.
5. It is forthcoming that the same contention was
urged before the Tribunal. The Tribunal considering the
contention of the insurer has recorded the following findings:
"15. On perusal of the provision of Sec. 232(1), (2) to
(5) shows they are the procedural aspect of filing of the
claim petition before the Tribunal. Whereas the object of
S.166 of M.V. Act is to provide compensation to the
injured of the accident case and it is a Social Justice
Legislation. Further S.166 of the MV Act deals with the
application for compensation, it does not preconditions
that the claim is entitled to claim compensation only when
there is registration of the case. ... "
6. Apart from the same, the Tribunal has considered
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court as well
as the Delhi High Court, where it has been consistently held
that where there is sufficient material to indicate that the
claimant has suffered an accident, failure to lodge a complaint
will not disentitle the claimant from seeking compensation.
Considering the legal position, the Tribunal while applying the
Hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'
NC: 2024:KHC:122
same to the facts of the present case, has recorded the
following findings:
"17. The ratios of both cases aptly applies to the case in
hand. In this petition also soon after the accident the
injured went to the Shankari hospital. Whereas, the
doctor of the said hospital not registered MLC. The
accident occurred out of the jurisdiction of Karnataka
State. So, the criminal case requires to be registered in
the jurisdiction of incident occurred place. However, it is
also true that the 1st respondent does not disputes the
occurrence of the incident. Only the insurer disputes on
occurrence of the incident. But, in view of my discussion
in the above paras shows except on non registration of
FIR, there is no other ground to dispute the claim petition.
Even the above referred citations shows there is no hard
and fast rule to stick on the procedural aspect mentioned
in the KMV Rules 1989. Hence, the above evidence
clearly established the case of the petitioner on
occurrence of the incident and the injury. So, the defence
raised by the 2nd respondent is not sustainable. Hence, I
answer issue No.1 in the affirmative."
(emphasis supplied)
7. The appellant has failed in demonstrating that the
failure to lodge a complaint would disentitle the claimant from
seeking compensation. In view of the reasoning of the Tribunal
and the settled proposition of law as rightly noticed by the
Tribunal, the above appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed as
being devoid of merit.
NC: 2024:KHC:122
8. The deposit made by the appellant before this Court
be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement in terms of the
judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
SD/-
JUDGE
ND
