Allowed

Divisional Manager v. Mariyappas/O. Mariswamappa Harizan

Karnataka HC27 Aug 2020MFA/21369/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal filed by an Insurance Company against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The Court held that evidence indicated no other vehicle was involved in the accident, barring compensation under Section 163-A, and set aside the Tribunal's order granting Rs.25,000.

What did the court decide?

The order of the Tribunal granting compensation to the claimant is set aside; the amount deposited is returned to the appellant.

Divisional Manager Vs Mariyappas/O. Mariswamappa Harizan — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶5

M.F.A.NO.21369/2012 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ARYA IDIGA HOSTEL COMPLEX, OPP. OLD BUS STAND SOUBLE ROAD, BELLARY, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ASST. MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, HUBLI.

¶8

... APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI RAJASHEKHAR S.ARANI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

SRI MARIYAPPA S/O MARISWAMAPPA HARIZAN, AGE : 27 YEARS, OCC: CONTRACTOR, R/O INDARGI TALUK, DIST: SHOLAPUR, MAHARASHTRA.

¶12

ANAND S/O JANI KASABE, AGE : 29 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF LORRY NO.MH.04/F-5829 R/O PO MUDSANGI, TQ: SANGOLLA, DIST: SHOLAPUR, MAHARASHTRA.

¶13

STALIN SOMAN S/O E.SOMAN, AGE 47 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS & OWNER OF LORRY NO.MH.04/F-5829, R/O JAI BHAVANI SHANKAR, HSG SANGH, FLAT NO.D9, SECTOR NO.2, VASI NAVI, MUMBAI.

¶14

... RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI B.V.SOMAPUR, ADV. FOR R.1) (NOTICE TO R.2 : SERVED)

¶16

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.10.2011 PASSED BY THE FAST TRACK COURT-II AND ADDITIONAL MACT, KOPPAL IN MVC.NO.411/2009.

¶17

¶18

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

: JUDGMENT :

¶20

This appeal, though listed for admission, is

¶21

taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶22

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 31.10.2011 passed by the Fast Track Court and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Koppal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal for short), in M.V.C. No.411/2009.

¶23

Parties will be referred to as per their ranking before the Claims Tribunal.

¶24

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 05.10.2006 when the claimant was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA.37/H.2277, it is

¶25

¶26

contended that, near the land of Dr.Satish a lorry bearing registration No.MH-04/F5829 belongs to the 3^rd respondent was parked in the middle of the road without any signal, due to which the claimant dashed into the lorry and causing the accident. As a result, the claimant sustained injuries on his leg and claiming to have spent huge sums of money for his treatment, the claimant filed a claim petition under Section 163A of the Act claiming a compensation of Rs.11,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the accident.

¶27

On issuance of notice, the respondentInsurance company appeared and denied the fact that, the lorry was involved in the accident and contended that it was due to negligence of the claimant himself that the accident had occurred.

¶28

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence.

¶29

¶30

The claimant, in order to prove the case, examined himself as PWs.1 and got exhibited 16 documents namely Exs.P1 to Ex.P.16. On the other hand, respondent-Insurance Company neither examined any witness nor marked any documents on its behalf.

¶31

The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the claimant was entitled to a compensation of Rs.25,000/- for the injuries sustained in the accident on the ground that, all the evidence was against the claimant. The Insurance Company has preferred the instant appeal being aggrieved by the grant of compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the claimant.

¶32

Heard learned counsel Sri Rajashekhar S.Arani appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company and learned counsel Sri B.V.Somapur appearing for claimant-respondent.

¶33

¶34

Learned counsel for the appellantInsurance Company would submit that it is not the amount i.e., involved in the instant case but the principle by which the claimant stepped into the shoes of the owner and copious evidence against the claimant and there was no warrant for the Tribunal to even grant compensation of Rs.25,000/- for the injuries sustained in the accident in favour of the claimant.

¶35

On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant would submit that since the amount is very meager the award of the Tribunal should not be disturbed, but he is not in a position to refute the documents that are against him and fact of stepping in to the shoes of the owner.

¶36

Though it is claimed that the accident occurred due to the lorry being parked in the middle of the road and the claimant dashed into the lorry as the lorry has been parked without any signal, but the complaint of the accident is

¶37

¶38

against the claimant, Ex.P.1-FIR is registered against the claimant, Ex.P.3-the charge sheet is filed by the police against the claimant, the report of the Inspector of Motor Vehicles is also against the claimant. The report of the motor vehicles Inspector Ex.P.4 reveals that there is no involvement of any other vehicle except the vehicle on which the claimant was traveling namely the motorcycle. Thus, the afore stated documents being against the claimant and the claimant stepping into the shoes of the owner, would not be entitled to any amount of compensation as there is no involvement of any other vehicle to claim even under Section 163-A of the Act.

¶39

Hence, in the facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal fell in error in granting compensation in favour of the claimant. Hence, the order of the Tribunal is set aside. According, the appeal is allowed.

¶40

¶41

The amount in deposit made by the

¶42

Insurance Company before this Court be returned to the appellant.

¶43

Sd– JUDGE

¶44

EM/-

Divisional Manager v. Mariyappas/O. Mariswamappa Harizan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Divisional Manager v. Mariyappas/O. Mariswamappa Harizan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prashant Keshav Marati Vs Gajanan S/ Gaonkar

Susheela Kom Hemu Marati Vs Gajanan S/ Gaonkar

Devi Kom Goma Marati Vs Gajanan S/ Gaonkar

H Shivalingamma W/O Late H Ramanuja @ H.Ramanjini Vs a K Gangadhara S/O Veerappa

Ajay Kumar S/O Gopalappa, Vs the Divisional Manager

The Divisional Manager, Vs Kaiyumbeg S/O Shamsherbeg Jamadar