This court dismissed two miscellaneous first appeals filed by an insurance company against compensation awards granted to motor accident claimants, confirming the tribunal's decision that the insurer was liable to pay damages.
Appeals dismissed and compensation awards in MVC Nos. 693/2006 and 694/2006 confirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B. A. PATIL
MFA No.30854/2011 (MV) C/W MFA No.30855/2011 (MV)
MFA No.30854/2011 (MV)
Between
United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Micro Office No. 52/88/1, Vidayanar, Sultan Complex Main Road, Gulbarga Represented By United India Insurance Co. Ltd Assistant Manager, Raichur
... Appellant
(By Sri S S Aspalli, Advocate)
And
2
... Respondents
(By Sri C Kesava Rao & Sri Veeranagouda Advocates for R-1 Sri G.B. Yadav Advocate for R-2 Appeal against R-3 is disposed)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act, against the judgement and award dated 1.1.2011 passed in MVC. No.694/2006 on the file of the MACT & Fast Track Court-I at Raichur, party allowing the claim petition and awarding compensation of Rs.3,56,710/- with interest at 6% per annum.
MFA No.30855/2011 (MV)
Between
United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Micro Office No. 52/88/1, Vidayanar, Sultan Complex Main Road, Gulbarga Represented By United India Insurance Co. Ltd Assistant Manager, Raichur
... Appellant
(By Sri S S Aspalli, Advocate)
3
| And |
|---|
| 1. Mikkilineni Pitcheswararao S/o Nagabushanam Age: 43 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o Vijaynagar Camp Tq: & Dist: Raichur |
| 2. Smt. Mikkilineni Sujata W/o Pitcheswararao Age: 46 years, Occ: House hold Both R/o Vijaynagar Camp Tq: & Dist: Raichur |
| 3. B. Venkatrao S/o Krishnata Murty Age: Major R/o Shorapur |
| 4. Akbar Patel S/o Ladle Patel Age: Major, Occ: Driver R/o Aldal Post: Tq: Shorapur Dist: Gulbarga ... Respondents |
| (By Sri Veeranagouda Advocate for R-1 Sri. G.B. Yadav Advocates for R-3 R-2 & R-4 served but unrepresented) |
| This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act, against the judgement and award dated 1.1.2011 passed in MVC. No.693/2006 on the file of the MACT & Fast Track Court-I at Raichur, party allowing the claim petition and awarding compensation of Rs.4,62,000/- with interest at 6%per annum. |
4
These appeals having been heard and reserved for judgment on 11.7.2017, coming on for pronouncement of judgment this day, the Court pronounced the following:-
J U D G M E N T
These appeals have been preferred by the Insurance Company by assailing the judgment and order passed by MACT and Fast Track Court-I, Raichur, in MVC No.694/2006 and 693/2006 by order dated 01.01.2011.
of the parties.
5
came rashly and negligently and dashed to the motorcycle and as a result of the same both fell down and sustained grievous injuries. The rider of the motorbike Nithin Kumar died on the spot, due to the injuries and Prasad sustained grievous injuries. For having lost the son and for having sustained injuries by the claimant, they filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and a criminal case was also registered against the driver of the tractor in Crime No.45/2006 of Surpur Police Station.
appeared and by denying the contents of the petition he further contended that the policy was in force and respondent No.3 is liable to pay compensation. Respondent No.3 also filed written statement by denying the contents of the petition. He further contended that the accident in question is because of rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motor cycle and they
6
are also necessary parties. He further contended that the rider of the motor cycle was not having a valid and effective driving licence and there is violation of the policy conditions. He has further contended that the tractor bearing registration No.KA.36/T-2109 is not involved in the accident and the tractor bearing registration No.KA.34/T-2407 is not correct. It is the trailer No.KA-34/T-2407, which was attached to the tractor bearing registration No.KA-36/T-2109 and the said tractor is not involved in the accident and as such he is not liable to pay any compensation.
7
per annum. By assailing the said judgment and order, the insurer is before this Court.
8
considering all the material facts has rightly come to the conclusion that the said vehicle has been involved in the said accident and the appellant has not made out any grounds so as to interfere with the order of the trial Court. On these grounds he prayed for dismissal of the said petition.
9
bearing registration No.KA-34/T-2407 has not been involved in the said accident. But it is not the case of the appellant that the respondent No.2- driver was not driving the said vehicle at the time of alleged incident. Respondent No.1- the owner of the tractor has also filed his written statement therein, he has also not denied the accident in question and the involvement of the tractor bearing reg. No.KA-34/T-2407.
10
consideration in accordance with law. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed.
“Having heard thus both sides and taking note of the endorsement in the R.C. book Ex.R.3 there is force in the submission made by the appellant counsel that the trailer KA-34/T-2407 was detached from the tractor bearing No.2406 as far back in the year 2004 itself and the claim petitions were filed in respect of the accident said to have occurred on 13.3.2006 i.e. two years after the trailer being detached from the tractor 2406. Secondly, even in the objections filed by the Insurance Company the factum of the accident has been admitted but the blame for the accident is attributed to the rider of the motorcycle.”
11
12
Insurance Company cannot contend that the said vehicle has not been involved in the accident and there is a suspicion in this behalf. Even as could be seen from the records, in order to substantiate the said contentions the Insurance Company has not produced any substantial material or evidence except relying upon Ex.P1- the copy of FIR ExP2the complaint. If really the said vehicle has not been involved in the accident as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, then under such circumstances, the observation made in the above said appeals by this Court definitely could have been challenged. Even in the said judgment it has been contended that the tractor which was new and has no registration, mistake was committed by mentioning trailer number as the number of the tractor and in that back drop the matter was remitted back. When all these materials clearly indicates the fact that the said vehicle has been
13
involved in the accident and the said vehicle has been insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. Under the above said facts and circumstances of the case, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant does not stands for any reason and the same is liable to be rejected.
ORDER
MFA Nos.30854 and 30855 of 2011 are dismissed and the judgment and award passed in MVC Nos.694 and 693 of 2006 have been confirmed.
Amount in deposit be transferred to
Jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/JUDGE
AP* Ct: vk
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Insurance Company can challenge the involvement of the vehicle in the accident when it was previously adjudicated and admitted.
Whether the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation awarded by the tribunal.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
N.Prasad
B. Venkatro
B. A. Patil
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
