Karnataka High Court
Shabbir vs National Insurance Co. Ltd on 4 January, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:555
MFA No. 7140 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7140 OF 2013 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
1. SHABBIR
S/O HUSSENSAB
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/AT NO. 474, MUBARAK
NAGAR, MAZID ROAD
THIGALARPALYA
BANGALORE-560058
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHRIPAD V SHASTRI ., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD
NO. 911, DASAPPA COMPLEX
T DASARAHALLI, TUMKUR ROAD
BANGALORE-560057
Digitally BY ITS MANAGER
signed by
BHARATHI S
2. G PRABHAKAR
Location:
HIGH COURT NO. 823, 14TH MAIN ROAD
OF 3RD BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR
KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-560010
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K SRIDHAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1
SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DTD
10.6.2016)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.05.2013 PASSED IN MVC
NO.3588/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL JUDGE,
MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE,
DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:555
MFA No. 7140 of 2013
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The above appeal is filed by the Claimant being dis-
satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by IV
Additional Judge, Member MACT, Court of Small Causes,
Bangalore1, vide judgment and award dated 4.5.2013 passed
in MVC.No.3588/2011.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein
are referred as per their rank before the Tribunal.
3. The relevant facts necessary for consideration of
the present appeal are that on 30.3.2011 when the claimant
was traveling as a pillion rider on motor cycle bearing No.KA-
02/HL 3219, a car bearing No.KA-02/AA -601 came in high
speed, in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motor
cycle causing the accident in question. Due to the said
accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. Seeking
compensation for the injuries caused in the said accident, the
claimant filed MVC No.3588/2011 arraying the owner and
Hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'
NC: 2024:KHC:555
insurer of the car as respondents. The claimant examined
himself as PW.1 and examined the doctor as PW.2. Exs.P1
to P15 were marked in evidence. The respondents have not
adduced any oral or documentary evidence. The Tribunal
vide judgment and award dated 4.3.2013 dismissed the
claim petition. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently
contended that the accident itself was not seriously disputed
by the respondents before the Tribunal and there was no
specific issue framed with regard to the same and the
Tribunal without adequately considering the material on
record and without adequately affording an opportunity to
the claimant to prove the case, has dismissed the claim
petition. He further submits that the Tribunal has recorded a
finding that the MLC Register has not been produced nor has
the claimant examined the investigating officer or an eye
witness or the complainant. He also submits that having
regard to the fact that the respondents have not seriously
disputed the accident in question, there was no requirement
for the claimant to specifically summon the MLC Register as
NC: 2024:KHC:555
recorded by the Tribunal as well as examine the investigating
officer or adduce evidence of an eye witness in view of the
fact that the claimant has produced the police records at
Exs.P1 to P5 as well as the other documents evidencing the
fact that the claimant has sustained injuries in the said
accident.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents justifies the
judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
6. It is forthcoming that the Tribunal has in detail
appreciated the records produced by the claimant and
noticing certain inconsistencies, has recorded a finding that
the claimant has not examined the investigating officer or an
eye witness or take steps to summon the MLC Register from
the hospital. It is relevant to note that the Tribunal has
noticed that the first respondent has not seriously disputed
the accident and the involvement of the vehicle. Despite the
same, the Tribunal has recorded the finding as noticed above
and dismissed the claim petition.
7. It is clear and forthcoming from the
aforementioned as well as having regard to the issues
NC: 2024:KHC:555
framed by the Tribunal that the claimant did not have an
indication that he is required to examine an eye witness or
the investigation officer as well as take steps to produce the
MLC Register from the hospital. In view of the same, it is
expedient that another opportunity be afforded to the
claimant to prove his case before the Tribunal by leading
evidence as sought for by the appellant in the present
appeal.
8. In view of the aforementioned, the following
order is passed:
ORDER
i)The above appeal is allowed in part;
ii) The judgment and award dated 25.07.2013 passed in
MVC.No.8290/2010 by IV Additional Judge, Member
MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore is enhanced.
iii)The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on
12.2.2024 without the requirement of any further
notice being issued in this regard;
iv)Upon appearance of the parties, the Tribunal shall
afford another opportunity to both the parties to
NC: 2024:KHC:555
adduce their evidence and thereafter, adjudicate upon
the claim petition in accordance with law;
v)All the contentions of the parties are kept open.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ND
