Karnataka High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd., By Its vs Sri. Noor @ Noormahmmad S/O Ismile on 9 January, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:472
MFA No. 22560 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.22560 OF 2011 (WC)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
BELLARY NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, SUJATA COMPLEX,
HUBLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S.ARANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. NOOR @ NOORMAHMMAD S/O ISMILE
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC:EX-DRIVER,
R/O: KOUL BAZAAR, BELLRY DISTRICT.
2. K. PALASHINAIK S/O KARIYANAIK,
AGE:MAJOR,
R/O: KOUL BAZAAR, DISTRICT: BELLARY.
...RESPONDENTS
SAROJA
HANGARAKI
(BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
Digitally signed by
SAROJA
R2 HELD SUFFICIENT)
HANGARAKI
Date: 2024.01.25
11:44:00 +0530 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 30(1) OF WORKMENS COMPENSATION ACT 1923, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATE 20.10.2010 PASSED IN W.C.
160/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER CUM
COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMENS COMPENSATION SUB DIVISION-1,
BELLARY, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.1,40,140/- WITH
INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 12% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION
TILL ITS DEPOSIT.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:472
MFA No. 22560 of 2011
JUDGMENT
Heard learned counsel Sri. Rajashekar S. Arani and
Sri.Hanumanthareddy Sahukar for respondent No.1.
Perused the records including the trial court records.
2. In respect of the alleged road traffic accident, first
respondent/claimant made a claim before the
Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation cum Labour
Officer (for short 'CWC') which was registered in WC
No.160/2008.
3. Gist of the claim petition averments would reveal
that the first respondent being driver of Trax Cruiser
bearing No.KA-34/6206 was working under the second
respondent Sri.Pallaksha Naik.
4. According to him, when the vehicle passing through
near Veerapura, because of breakage of staring rod, he
lost control over the vehicle and vehicle got turtled.
5. The people who are nearby came their and rescued
him from the vehicle and shifted him to PHC Kuduthini and
NC: 2024:KHC-D:472
thereafter, he was shifted to VIMS hospital Bellary for
higher treatment.
6. Out post police of cantonment visited the hospital
and took the statement of the driver which is marked at
Ex.P1. Since, he has sustained accidental injuries, he filed
the claim petition.
7. The owner of the vehicle admitted the accident and
contended that since the vehicle is insured, the
compensation is to be payable by the insurance company.
8. Insurance company resisted the claim petition by
contending that the accident itself is not properly
established and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
9. Learned CWC after raising necessary issues and
considering the material evidence on record in a
cumulative manner allowed the claim petition in part and
granted sum of Rs.1,40,140/- with 12% interest per
annum after one month of the accident till recovery and
fastened the liability on insurance company.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:472
10. Being aggrieved by the same, insurance company is
in appeal.
11. Sri.Rajashekar Arani, learned counsel for insurance
company contended that CWC has not taken into
consideration the probative value of the material evidence
placed on record in its proper perspective and wrongly
fastened the liability on the insurance company and sought
for allowing the appeal.
12. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.Hanumanth R.Lathur
appearing for the claimants supported the impugned
judgment.
13. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, this
court has perused the material on record meticulously.
14. On such perusal of material available on records, it is
crystal clear that no complaint has been lodged by the
claimants with the police nor police have registered any
case. In the absence of proper evidence placed on record
establishing the road traffic accident by examining either
NC: 2024:KHC-D:472
eye witness to the accident, the Workmen Compensation
Commissioner based on Ex.P1 and statement said to have
given by the owner of vehicle alone ought not to have
recorded a finding that the claimant was successful in
establishing the accident and therefore ought not to have
fastened the liability on the insurance company.
15. Further, wound certificate issued by the VIMS
hospital is in two different inks. The same is issued by the
Medical Officer, Primary Health Center, Kuduthini.
16. Admittedly, no X-ray certificate or radiology report is
accompanied along with Ex.P2.
17. EX.P3 is based on the Ex.P2 issued by the private
doctor.
18. Ex.P.7 is MLC extract issued by the PHC Kuduthini.
Again the said document is nothing but the repetition of
the injuries mentioned in Ex.P.2.
19. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, this court
is of the considered opinion that the insurance company is
NC: 2024:KHC-D:472
to be exonerated from its liability. No doctor is examined
on behalf of the claimant. There is no IMV report showing
that the Trax Cruiser bearing No.KA-34/6206 has met with
accident.
20. On cumulative consideration of these evidences on
record, there is sufficient force in the argument put forth
on behalf of the insurance company that claimant has not
been able to establish the accident by placing necessary
evidence on record.
21. Therefore, the case is made out by the insurance
company to allow the appeal by exonerating the insurance
company.
22. Having said thus, since the owner himself has
admitted the accident and has failed to contest the appeal
on merits before this Court, adjudged compensation is to
be paid by the owner instead of remanding the matter to
the trial court for fresh disposal as is sought for by the
learned counsel Sri.Hanumanth Reddy Sahukar.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:472
23. Hence, the following:
ORDER
i) Appeal is allowed.
ii) The insurance company is absolved from the
payment of adjudged compensation.
iii) Claimant is at liberty to recover the adjudged
compensation from the owner of the vehicle.
iv) Amount in deposit is order to be returned to
the insurance company.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HMB
