Karnataka High Court
The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Smt Gangamma on 6 March, 2024
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:9499
MFA No. 4165 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4165 OF 2013 (MV)
BETWEEN:
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO. 19/19, 20/21, MUNICIPAL ROAD, ADONI,
KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH,
REPRESENTED BY REGIONAL OFFICE,
NO. 2-B, UNITY BUILDING, ANNEX,
MISSION ROAD, BANGALORE-560 027.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. C.R.RAVISHANKAR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. GANGAMMA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
W/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA,
2. MASTER SRIKANT
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
Digitally signed by S/O SMT. RAMAKRISHNA,
THEJASKUMAR N
Location: HIGH BOTH ARE R/AT BYCHAPURA VILLAGE,
COURT OF GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK,
KARNATAKA
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-562 101.
3. SRI. G.V.ASWATHNARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
S/O LATE V.C.VENKATARAMANAPPA,
PROP. RAJ MOTOR SERVICES,
FORT, GOWRIBIDANUR TOWN,
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-562 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO R1 AND R2-HELD SUFFICIENT
V/O DATED: 09.06.2017;
R3-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:9499
MFA No. 4165 of 2013
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 31.12.2012
PASSED IN MVC NO.47/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT
JUDGE, MACT-I, CHICKBALLAPUR.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR
FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Sri.C.R.Ravishankar., learned counsel for the appellant
has appeared in person.
2. Notice to the respondents was ordered on
14.06.2013. A perusal of office note depicts that respondent
No.3 is served and unrepresented and notice to respondents 1
and 2 is held sufficient vide order dated:09.06.2017. The
respondents have neither engaged the services of an advocate
nor conducted the case as party in person.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be
referred to as per their status and rankings before the Tribunal.
4. The brief facts are these:
NC: 2024:KHC:9499
On the 06th day of February 2006 at about 1:00 pm., one
Kitti @ Ramakrishna aged about 35 years, working as an
agriculturist and vegetable vendor was traveling as a passenger
in a bus bearing Registration No.KA-06-7065 that belonged to
the first respondent, duly insured with the second respondent.
It is contended that the driver of the bus drove the same in a
rash and negligent manner and as a result of which,
Mr.Ramakrishna fell down and sustained head injury. He was
shifted to nearest hospital and thereafter to NIMHANS hospital,
where he died on the very same day. Contending that the
accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus,
the dependents of the deceased Ramakrishna filed claim
petition seeking compensation.
In response to the notice, respondents 1 and 2 appeared
through their counsel and filed objections and denied petition
averments. The Insurance Company contended that the death
occurred on account of the negligence of the deceased, hence
the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay
compensation. Among other grounds it prayed for dismissal of
the petition.
NC: 2024:KHC:9499
Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed
Issues, parties led evidence and marked the documents. The
Tribunal vide Judgment dated:31.12.2012 allowed the petition.
It is this Judgment that is called into question in this appeal on
several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
Judgment and award of the Tribunal is illegal, arbitrary and
contrary to the law.
Next, he submits that the Tribunal has erred in awarding
compensation and fastening liability on the Insurance company
without any legal basis.
A further submission is made that as per the
documentary evidence on record initially the police did not
register the accident case, but registered only as an UDR case,
since the deceased was a passenger on the roof top of the bus
and while getting down on the ladder on the backside of the
bus, he slipped and fell down on his own.
Learned counsel vehemently contended that it is a clear
case that the accident did not occur due to any negligence of
NC: 2024:KHC:9499
the bus driver, but the deceased was solely negligent and
attributed for his fall from the ladder of the bus.
Lastly, he submits that viewed from any angle, the
Judgment and award of the Tribunal is erroneous and the same
is liable to be set-aside. Counsel therefore, submits that the
appeal may be allowed.
Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant
and perused the appeal papers and also the records with
utmost care.
6. The point that requires consideration is whether the
Tribunal is justified in concluding that the claimants are entitled
for compensation and holding that owner and Insurance
company are liable to pay compensation?
7. The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require
reiteration. The claimants being the dependents of deceased
Ramakrishna filed the claim petition contending that they are
entitled for compensation on account of death of Ramakrishna
in the Road Traffic Accident.
NC: 2024:KHC:9499
Suffice it to note that the accident appears to have
occurred on the 6th day of February 2006. However,
Smt.Gangamma the wife of deceased Ramakrishna gave
statement only on the 4th day of April 2006. The same is
marked as Ex.R.1. It is relevant to note that, Smt.Gangamma
states that her husband Ramakrishna was climbing the ladder
of the bus and fell down and succumbed to injuries.
The Charge sheet depicts that the complaint is given by
Smt.Gangamma on the 1st day of April 2006, however Ex.R.1 is
the statement made by Smt.Gangamma on the 4th day of April
2006. There is a difference in the date. Furthermore, there is
also a delay of almost two months in making a complaint.
Taking note of the statement made by the wife of deceased
Ramakrishna that he was climbing the ladder of the bus from
backside and fell down and succumbed to injuries, I have no
hesitation to hold that the accident occurred due to the
negligence on the part of deceased Ramakrishna himself.
The documentary evidence on record would reveal that
initially the Police did not register the accident case, but
registered only an UDR case, since the deceased made an
NC: 2024:KHC:9499
attempt to climb the ladder on the backside of the stationed
bus, he slipped and fell down on his own.
It is relevant to note that the entire case of the claimants
that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the bus
driver is not proved. Hence, the finding and conclusion so
arrived at by the Tribunal with regard to negligence on the part
of driver of the bus is unfounded and untenable. Needless to
observe that when the deceased himself was responsible for his
fall, the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of
rash and negligent driving of the bus is also unsustainable in
law. I may venture to say that the Tribunal has overlooked the
important aspects of the matter and erroneously concluded that
it is an accident case.
8. For the reasons stated above, the Judgment passed
by the Tribunal holding that the claimants are entitled for
compensation is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, the
Judgment dated:31.12.2012 passed by the Court of MACT-I,
Chickballapur in M.V.C.No.47/2008 is set-aside. The Claim
Petition is dismissed.
NC: 2024:KHC:9499
9. Resultantly, the Miscellaneous First Appeal is
allowed.
Office is directed to transmit the records and the amount
in deposit to the Tribunal forthwith for refund of the same to
the Insurance Company.
Sd/-
JUDGE
TKN
