Karnataka High Court
Branch Manager vs Prakash on 12 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:6362
MFA No. 8561 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8561 OF 2016(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
BRANCH MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE, KASTURI MANSION,
II FLOOR, M.G. ROAD,
ABOVE CANARA BANK, TUMAKURU TOWN,
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE, SUBHARAM COMPLEX,
144, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. A. N. KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
AASEEFA PARVEEN 1. PRAKASH,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF S/O. RANGASWAMY,
KARNATAKA NOW AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/O. N. NANDIHALLIPALYA VILLAGE,
GUBBI TALUK,
NOW R/AT C/O. DODDAHANUMAIAH,
CHOKKENAHALLI VILLAGE,
NEAR TOLL GATE, URDIGERE HOBLI,
TUMAKURU TALUK-572 140.
2. G. KESHAVAMURTHY
S/O. GANGANNA,
NOW AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT GEJJAGADAHALLI VILLAGE,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:6362
MFA No. 8561 of 2016
ARALUMALLIGE POST,
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-561 203.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAMESH KUMAR R.V., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.06.2016 PASSED IN
MVC NO.863/13 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE & MACT-XI, TUMAKURU, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.1,82,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 8% P.A.
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL PAYMENT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.A.N.Krishna Swamy, learned counsel for the
appellant as well as Sri.Ramesh Kumar R.V., learned counsel
for respondent No.1.
2. The insurance company which was directed to pay
compensation to the claimant is before this Court challenging
the order that is rendered by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal-XI, Tumakuru, in MVC No.863/2013 dated 08.06.2016.
3. Through his effective submission learned counsel
for the appellant Sri.A.N.Krishna Swamy tried to establish
NC: 2025:KHC:6362
before this Court that respondent No.1 sustained injuries due to
self fall from a motor vehicle due to its skid. Learned counsel
submits that the accident did not occur due to the negligence
on part of the rider of the motor cycle bearing Registration
No.KA.43 L-4622. Learned counsel states that indeed the
claimant i.e. respondent No.1 herein fell from a motor vehicle
over which he was traveling and thus sustained injuries.
Learned counsel placed much reliance on the contents of Ex.R1
- MLC Register Extract. Submitting that no person is entitled to
play fraud upon the Court, learned counsel placed reliance upon
the decision that is rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case between United India Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Rajendra Singh and another reported in LAWS(SC)-2000-3-21.
Learned counsel also placed reliance upon the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of North West Karnataka Road
Transport Corporation Vs. Gourabai and Others reported in
(2009) 15 Supreme Court Cases 165.
4. Per contra, the submission that is made by learned
counsel for respondent No.1 is that, respondent No.1 and his
wife were waiting for a bus by standing near the bus stop on
the date of accident and at that time the rider of motor bike
NC: 2025:KHC:6362
bearing Registration No.KA.43 L-4622 came riding his vehicle in
a rash and negligent manner and dashed against respondent
No.1, due to which he sustained grievous injuries and fell
unconscious. Learned counsel states that as the wife of
respondent No.1 was attending him, she could not give
compliant to police immediately and the complaint was lodged
after 14 days. However, after thorough investigation police laid
charge sheet against the rider of the motor cycle having found
genuineness in the contents of the complaint lodged. The
Tribunal appreciating the said fact, held that the appellant
herein is liable to pay compensation being the insurer of the
offending vehicle and thus the award of the Tribunal is valid in
all aspects.
5. The contents of Ex.R1- MLC Register Extract reveals
a mention "alleged history of RTA today afternoon following
skid and fall near mensi gate @ 4.00 p.m. Vehicle No.KA.06.
3199, pt. not willing for MLC." The said document also reveals
that the brothers of respondent No.1 i.e. Sri.Prasad and
Sri.Ravi have signed.
NC: 2025:KHC:6362
6. Production of a document does not mean that the
genuineness of its contents was established before the
Tribunal. The appellant herein who placed much reliance upon
the contents of Ex.R1 ought to have summoned the Author of
the said document or any of the hospital authorities to establish
before the Tribunal that the said document indeed was issued
on the alleged date mentioned therein, that too by the said
hospital.
7. A perusal of the contents of Ex.P2- wound
certificate discloses that the said wound certificate was issued
by the same hospital which issued Ex.R1. In Ex.P2 there is a
clear mention that respondent No.1 was admitted to hospital on
09.09.2013 with the history of road traffic accident on the
same day at about 4.00 p.m. Why contradictory statements
were made at Exs.R1 and Ex.P2 is not known. But respondent
No.1 i.e. the claimant succeeded in establishing that basing on
the contents of Ex.P1 - complaint, police investigated into the
case and laid charge sheet as mentioned in Ex.P4 that the
accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the
rider of the motor cycle as pleaded by respondent No.1-
claimant.
NC: 2025:KHC:6362
8. The established principle of law is that the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunals are required to follow summary
procedure and that the claims have to be decided basing on
preponderance of probabilities. Proof beyond reasonable doubt
is not required. In the case on hand, the evidence produced by
respondent No.1 through Exs.P1, P3 and P4 establishes that
the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of
the rider of the motor bike bearing registration No.KA.43 L-
4622. On the other hand, by failing to establish the
genuineness of Exs.R1 and R2, the appellant could not succeed
in establishing its defense that the accident occurred due to self
fall of respondent No.1 from the motor cycle. Therefore, this
Court holds that the Tribunal did not err in awarding
compensation to the respondent No.1 - claimant and ordering
the appellant to pay the same being the insurer of the
offending vehicle.
9. Another plea is taken by the appellant in respect of
awarding rate of interest. In this regard the submission that is
made by learned counsel for the appellant is that, the Tribunal
awarded interest at the rate of 8% per annum, but during the
NC: 2025:KHC:6362
relevant period, the rate of interest that is fixed by the banking
authorities is 6% per annum.
10. Learned counsel for respondent No.1-claimant did
not deny the genuineness in the said submission. Therefore,
this Court considers desirable to reduce the rate of interest
from 8% to 6% per annum, as prayed for. Thus, the following
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The compensation that is granted by the Tribunal be
paid to respondent No.1-claimant with interest at the rate of
6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
AP
CT:TSM
