Karnataka High Court
H M Basavaraju vs The Manager on 30 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:30013
MFA No. 7749 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
MFA NO. 7749 OF 2012 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
H M BASAVARAJU
S/O MASTIGOWDA@PUTTANNA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/O HONNAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE
NUGGEHALLY HOBLI,CHANNRAYAPATNA
TALUK,HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201 ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. GIRISH B BALADARE, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE MANAGER
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL
INSURANCE CO.,NO 363
SRI HARI COMPLEX
SEETHA VILAS ROAD
MYSORE-570 024
2. NANJEGOWDA
Digitally signed by AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
PRAJWAL A S/O SUBBEGOWDA
SBM EMPLOYEE,NO 23
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA CHANNARAYAPATNA TOWN
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H S LINGARAJ, ADV. FOR R1;
SRI. RAJARAM SOORYAMBAIL, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.03.2012
PASSED IN MVC NO.46/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING
OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, CHANNARAYAPATNA,
DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:30013
MFA No. 7749 of 2012
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
In this appeal, the petitioner has challenged the
judgment and award dated 17.03.2012 passed in
M.V.C.No.46/2008 by the Fast Track Court,
Channarayapatna ('the Tribunal' for short).
2. Appellant is the petitioner, respondent No.1 is
respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 is respondent
No.1 before the Tribunal. For the sake of convenience,
the rank of the parties shall be referred to as per their
status before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are, on 07.08.2007 at
about 07.45 p.m., while the petitioner was riding the
motor cycle along with one Swamy as a pillion rider on
Honnamaranahally-Nuggehally road near the land of
respondent No.1, motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-
13/R-5806 came from the opposite direction and
dashed against the motor cycle of the petitioner due to
NC: 2024:KHC:30013
which, he sustained injuries, was treated at KIMS
Hospital and NIMHANS Hospital, Bangalore and was
under hospitalization for 15 days. After taking
treatment, the petitioner has approached the Tribunal
for grant of compensation. Claim was opposed by the
Insurance Company. The Tribunal after taking the
evidence and hearing both parties though assessed
compensation of Rs.1,78,000/- but dismissed the claim
petition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has
filed this appeal on various grounds.
4. Heard the arguments of Sri.Girish B.Baladare,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.H.S.Lingaraj,
learned counsel for the Insurance Company and
Sri.Rajaram Sooryambail, learned counsel for the
owner of the motor cycle.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the motor cycle in question was covered
with insurance as in the course of cross-examination,
the Officer of the Insurance Company admitted the
NC: 2024:KHC:30013
cover note. As per the cover note, there is valid
insurance and the Insurance Company is liable to pay
compensation. It is further contended that the
compensation assessed is on the lower side and sought
for enhancement.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance
Company has contended that the Insurance Company
has verified the cover note and the policy issued in
favour of the motor cycle and the cover note do not
tally with each other. On the date of accident, there is
no valid coverage as per the policy. The Xerox copy of
the cover note is confronted to the officer of the
Insurance Company. Even the Insurance Company is
ready to verify and pay compensation provided if they
produce original cover note. The compensation
assessed by the Tribunal is based on the evidence and
it is not a case for enhancement. The Tribunal has
considered all these aspects and rightly dismissed the
claim petition and sought for dismissal of the appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC:30013
7. Learned counsel for the owner of the vehicle
has contended that the motor cycle was under the
policy of insurance. The cover note produced by the
petitioner has been accepted by the officer of the
Insurance Company. Therefore, the Insurance
Company is liable to indemnify its liability.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the
arguments addressed on behalf of the parties and
perused the records.
9. The material on record goes to show that there
was an accident involving two motor cycles. Petitioner
is rider of one of the motor cycles. The medical
records show that the petitioner has sustained injures,
he was treated in various hospitals and as an injured,
he is entitled to claim compensation. The Tribunal
considering the nature of injuries referred to in Exs.P7
to P16 while holding that the petitioner has suffered
undisplaced fracture of frontal bone, fracture of
posterolateral wall of right maxillary antrum with
NC: 2024:KHC:30013
haemosinus, assessed the compensation. The rider of
the offending motor cycle is one M.S.Girigowda, who is
pleaded guilty before the Magistrate in
C.C.No.480/2008. Negligence on the part of the
offending motor cycle is thereby explained. The
Tribunal having regard to the nature of injuries,
assessed the compensation at Rs.1,78,000/- and it is
reasonable and there is no scope for enhancing the
compensation.
10. A careful perusal of the impugned judgment
makes out that the Tribunal has discussed about the
validity of the cover note, which is not marked in
evidence. The policy of insurance is marked at Ex.R2
that it was issued on 29.08.2007 covering the risk
from 22.08.2007 to 21.08.2008. The date of accident
was on 07.08.2007. From the recitals of Ex.R2, on the
date of accident, there is no insurance cover. The
petitioner has not proved the cover note bearing
No.PC0611659835 which the Insurance Company
NC: 2024:KHC:30013
claiming that it is not original and not issued by the
Insurance Company. The owner of the motor cycle is
though represented, he has not placed any evidence
explaining that there is a valid insurance on the date of
accident. Before the Tribunal, the owner of the vehicle
was placed exparte. The Tribunal though considered
that the Insurance Company cannot be directed to pay
the compensation, instead of directing the owner to
pay compensation, dismissed the claim petition. No
satisfactory reason is forthcoming in the impugned
judgment for dismissal of the claim against the owner
of the motor cycle. Therefore, the owner of the vehicle
is liable to pay the compensation. The appeal merits
consideration, in the result, the following;
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed in part;
(ii) The impugned judgment and award dated
17.03.2012 passed in M.V.C.No.46/2008
is hereby set aside;
NC: 2024:KHC:30013
(iii) The claim petition is allowed against the
owner of the motor cycle i.e., against
respondent No.1 and dismissed against
the Insurance Company i.e., respondent
No.2.
(iv) Respondent No.1 is directed to pay
compensation of Rs.1,78,000/- with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from
the date of petition till its realization;
(v) Respondent No.1 shall deposit the
compensation within 8 weeks from the
date of receipt of certified copy of this
judgment.
(vi) The amount in deposit, if any, shall be
transmitted to the Tribunal along with
records.
SD/-
(T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA)
JUDGE
KNM
