Remanded

Shivarudra v. the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Karnataka HC9 Jun 2015MFA/139/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the first appeal against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal order dismissing a compensation claim. The court remitted the matter to the Tribunal to examine the authors of documents (wound certificate and accident register) containing discrepancies regarding the cause and date of the accident injury.

What did the court decide?

The appeal and accompanying application for additional evidence were allowed; the impugned judgment was set aside and the case remitted to the Tribunal for examining the document authors and recording

Shivarudra Vs the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. — Karnataka HC (2015) — LawSathi Research

¶1

�� MFA No��

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2015

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S.PACHHAPURE

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.139 OF 2013 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHIVARUDRA AGED 33 YEARS S/O VEERABADRAIAH R/O GABBADI VILLAGE KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGAR DISTRICT.

¶9

... APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI: GIRIMALLAIAH, ADV)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD CBO-2, NO.1/1, CONNAUGHT ROAD QUEENS ROAD CROSS BENGALURU BY ITS MANAGER.

¶13

SHIVAKUMR H R AGE: MAJOR R/O D NO.201 BRAMARAMBA NILAYA

¶14

MFA No��

¶15

��

¶16

B STREET, HAROHALLI KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGAR DISTRICT.

¶17

... RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI: M SOWRI RAJU, ADV FOR R1, R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶19

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.08.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.6676/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

¶20

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

The dismissal of claim petition has been

¶23

challenged in this appeal by the claimant.

¶24

Perusal of the facts reveal that on

¶25

18.07.2009, while the appellant was loading stones to the lorry bearing registration No.KA 05 B 4832, the vehicle was taken in a reverse direction and the appellant sustained grievous

¶26

�� MFA No��

¶27

injuries to his right hand as the wheel of lorry ran over on his right hand. He was taken to the hospital. He suffered disability, therefore, made a claim for compensation. The Tribunal after recording the evidence, has dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the accident, rash and negligent driving is not proved. Aggrieved by the judgment and award, the present appeal is filed.

¶28

An application i.e., IA.I/2015 is filed seeking permission to produce the additional documents.

¶29

Heard the learned Counsel for both

¶30

the parties.

¶31

Learned Counsel for the appellant

¶32

submits that the author of Exs.P6 and P12 have not been examined. Therefore, the Tribunal has rejected the claim petition on the ground that discrepancy in the said documents are not explained, hence, seeks remittal of the matter.

¶33

�� MFA No��

¶34

On the other hand, learned Counsel

¶35

for the insurer supports the judgment and award and submits that the evidence was rightly appreciated by the Tribunal and the dismissal is just and proper.

¶36

The wound certificate (Ex.P6) reveals that the appellant suffered the crush injury to his right hand and there is discrepancy as regards the date on which the accident occurred and Ex.P6 has been issued by the casualty medical officer of the Government Hospital. The accident extract register (Ex.P12) reveals that there was a crush injury to the right hand of appellant in a road traffic accident, but this sentence relating to road traffic accident appears to have been inserted. The author of Exs.P6 and P12 is not examined. The appellant seeks permission to examine the author of these two documents to explain the discrepancy and

¶37

�� MFA No��

¶38

therefore, has filed interim application seeking

¶39

permission to produce additional evidence.

¶40

Perusal of the material placed on

¶41

record reveals that the appellant has suffered the grievous injuries and on the question as to whether the said injury is due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry or not is a matter which could be taken into consideration after the evidence of author of Exs.P6 and P12 is examined, as he is the best person to explain the discrepancy. So taking into consideration this aspect and in the interest of justice, I am of the opinion that an opportunity to examine the author of aforesaid documents will have to be granted.

¶42

Accordingly, the appeal and IA.I/2015 are allowed. The impugned judgment and award is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for recording evidence of the author of aforesaid documents by affording an opportunity

¶43

MFA No��

¶44

��

¶45

to both the parties and then to dispose of the case in accordance with law.

¶46

To avoid the delay, both the parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 13.07.2015.

¶47

JUDGE

¶48

*bgn/-

Shivarudra v. the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivarudra v. the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr T Hemanath Vs Sri Koosappa Gowda

Susheelamma Vs Venkatesha Reddy

Dugganna Gowda Vs Smt Annamma

Shivaraju Vs K C Srinivas

Rahamathulla Vs Shivananda

Manjunath Vs Sidappa @ Revanasiddappa