Dismissed

The Manager v. Smt Savitha B H

Karnataka HC9 Sept 2020MFA/9724/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the insurer's first appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award of Rs. 18.93 lakhs. Relying on the insurer's own representative's admissions regarding the accident report, FIR, and guilty plea, the Court upheld the Tribunal's finding of negligence and liability.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; insurer directed to deposit compensation with interest within four weeks.

The Manager Vs Smt Savitha B H — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 09^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9724 OF 2013 (MV)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., #72, 3^RD FLOOR, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE, MISSION ROAD, BANGALORE-560 027 NOW REPRESENTED BY REGIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, SUBHARAM COMPLEX, 144, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶10

... APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. A.N.KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE (THROUGH VC))

¶12

AND:

¶13

SMT. SAVITHA B.H. W/O SHIVARAJU, NOW AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/A #96/4, V MAIN ROAD, OMKARA NILAYA, PIPELINE, KASTURINAGAR, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 026.

¶14

¶15

MANJUNATH, AGE: MAJOR, R/A RAJESWARI WEIGH BRIDGE COMPOUND, BOMMANAHALLI, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE.

¶16

... RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT. BHUSHANI KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR / RESPONDENT NO.1) (THROUGH VC)

¶18

VIDE ORDER DATED 31.07.2018, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.2 IS DEEMED TO BE COMPLETE)

¶19

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.07.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.1008/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AND XXIII ASCJ , BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 18,92,500/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.

¶20

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI V. HOSMANI J ., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal is filed by the insurer assailing the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Court of Small Causes), Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal" for the sake of convenience) in MVC No.10008/2012 dated 18.07.2013.

¶23

By the said judgment and award, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition filed by respondent No.1 herein and

¶24

¶25

awarded compensation of Rs.18,92,500/- with interest at

¶26

the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the insurer has preferred this appeal.

¶27

For the sake of convenience, parties shall be

¶28

referred to in terms of their status before the Tribunal.

¶29

The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal

¶30

are that on 07.01.2012 at about 5.00 p.m. respondent No.1 riding motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-01 S- 1096 came in a rash and negligent manner in high speed and dashed against the petitioner, who was a pedestrian walking on the left side of I Main road, near vegetable Market, Kalasipalya, Bengaluru to board the bus. As a result of the accident, the petitioner fell down and sustained the following injuries:

¶31

Diffused tenderness present over T12-L1 region.

¶32

Tenderness present over right side chest

¶33

¶34

Tenderness + Creptics and abnormal mobility

¶35

over the middle 1/3^rd Humerus.

¶36

X-ray revealed compression Fracture of L1 vertebrae, Fracture transverse process of L1, L2 vertebrae right side, Chest multiple fracture of ribs involving the posterior and posterior lateral aspect 6^th to 10^th ribs, humerus, fracture mid shaft of right humerus displacement of fracture fragment.

¶37

Immediately, she was shifted to KIMS hospital. According to the petitioner despite treatment she suffered paraplegia with bowel and bladder involvement, as such she suffered from disability to the extent of 100% and consequently total loss of earning capacity. Hence, she filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.

¶38

In response to the notices issued by the Tribunal, respondent No.2-owner/rider of the motorcycle did not appear before the Tribunal and was placed ex-

¶39

¶40

parte. Respondent No.1-insurer (appellant herein) appeared through its counsel and filed written statement. It admitted issuance of the policy. It has contended that accident was due to negligence on account of the petitioner (respondent no.1). It further contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident.

¶41

On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:

¶42

i) Whether the petitioner proves that, she sustained injuries on 01.01.2012 at about 5 p.m. due to the rash or negligent riding of the Motor bike bearing Reg.No.KA-01:S1096 by its driver near Vegetable market, Kalasipalya, Bangalore?

¶43

ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what is the quantum? From whom payable?

¶44

iii) What order or award?

¶45

¶46

6. Thereafter the petitioner examined herself as

¶47

C.W.1 and Dr. Manju Jayaram as P.W.2 and got marked 20 documents at Ex.P.1 to P.20. On behalf of respondent No.1-insurer, one witness was examined as R.W.1 and three documents marked as Ex.R.1 to R.3.

¶48

The Claims Tribunal answered issue No.1 and 2 in the affirmative and issue No. 3 as per final order by awarding total compensation of Rs.18,92,500/- from the respondents along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

¶49

We have heard learned counsel, Sri A.N. Krishna Swamy, for the appellant and Smt. Bhushani Kumar and perused the record. On hearing learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the material on record, the following points would arise for our consideration:

¶50

Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the motorcycle bearing No.KA-01:S-1096 was involved in the

¶51

¶52

accident that occurred on 07.01.2012 at about 5.00 p.m. near the vegetable market, Kalasipalya, Bengaluru ?

¶53

2. What order ?

¶54

Since the learned counsel for the appellant is

¶55

not questioning the award on quantum and has urged only the on ground of negligence while assailing the award of the Tribunal, the only issue required to be determined is the aspect of negligence in causing the accident.

¶56

It is seen that the petitioner was a pedestrian. The accident occurred when the rider of the motorcycle dashed against her on the 1^st Main Road, near vegetable market, Kalasipalya. It is noted that the road in question is one of the busy roads in Bengaluru city. All road users are required to be alert to the large number of pedestrians. However, the factor that clinches the issue is the admissions given by RW-1 i.e., the Administrative Officer of the Insurance Company. He has clearly stated

¶57

¶58

that the Insurance Company conducted an enquiry through its officers about this case and obtained report. However, there is no explanation why the said report was not produced before the Tribunal. RW-1 further admitted that 20 hours after the accident a case had been registered against the rider of the motorcycle. He further admitted that both in complaint and in the FIR the vehicle number is clearly mentioned. He further admitted that MLC was transmitted from the KIMS Hospital and the police rushed to the hospital and recorded the statement of the petitioner in the presence of the duty doctor, who countersigned it. RW-1 further admitted that the rider pleaded guilty for causing the accident before the JMFC court and paid fine amount.

¶59

In view of the aforesaid discussion and

¶60

particularly having regard to the evidence of RW.1, Administrative officer of the appellant - Insurance Company, we hold that the Tribunal was justified and correct in coming to the conclusion that the vehicle was

¶61

¶62

indeed involved in the accident and consequently rightly fastened the liability on the owner and insurer of the said vehicle and awarded compensation to the injured - claimant. In the result, we find no merit in the appeal.

¶63

The Appeal is hence, dismissed.

¶64

The amount in deposit to be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal.

¶65

The appellant-Insurer to deposit the balance compensation amount with up-to-date interest before the Tribunal within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

¶66

Parties to bear their respective costs.

¶67

Office to transmit the Trial Court records to the

¶68

concerned Tribunal forthwith.

¶69

Sd/JUDGE

¶70

Sd/JUDGE

¶71

Sma/BVK

The Manager v. Smt Savitha B H

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Manager v. Smt Savitha B H

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

Smt. Shanthamma Vs Sri. v Narayanaswamy

Mr S P Venkatesh Vs the Chief Secretary

Asha Shetty Vs the State of Karnataka

L. Srilalitha Vs L. Phani Pavan Kumar

Mr Phani Pavana Kumar Vs Smt Srilalitha

Abb India Limited Vs Sri Lingaraju a R