Dismissed

M/S. Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited v. Srujan P Naik

Karnataka HC3 Jun 2021MFA/1748/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Motor Accidents Claim Appeal challenges a Tribunal award of Rs. 10,000 compensation for an RTA. The Insurance Company contested the claim as a self-fall, raising inconsistencies in hospital records. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's finding.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal's award of compensation and interest was upheld.

M/S. Icici Lombard General Insurance Company… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶6

M.F.A.NO.1748/2013 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/s. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED PRAJAPRAGATHI BUILDING B.H.ROAD, TUMAKURU NOW REPRESENTED BY M/s. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED NO.89, 2^ND FLOOR, S.V.R. COMPLEX HOSUR MAIN ROAD, MADIWALA BENGALURU-560 068 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER - LEGAL

¶9

… APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI A.M.VENKATESH, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

1 . SRUJAN P. NAIK S/O PRAKASH NAIK AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS MINOR, REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN AND FATHER - PRAKASH NAIK RESPONDENT NO.1 HEREIN S/O SHIVANAYA NAIKA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS WORKING AS TEACHER OPS I.D. HALLI, R/O.HOSAKERE MEDIGESI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK.

¶13

¶14

2 . MANJUNATHA

¶15

S/o. KANIME RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS LIC AGENT, R/o. HOSAKERE MEDIGESI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK (OWNER OF HERO HONDA MOTORCYCLE BEARING REG NO.KA-06/EE-8225)

¶16

… RESPONDENTS

¶17

(R2-SERVED; VIDE ORDER DATED 05.06.2017 NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶18

THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.11.2012 PASSED IN MVC.NO.70/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT-XIII, MADHUGIRI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.10,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶19

THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH ‘VIDEO CONFERENCE’ THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

Though this appeal is listed for admission today, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company, the same is taken up for final disposal.

¶22

Heard learned counsel appearing for the

¶23

appellant/Insurance Company.

¶24

This appeal is filed by the appellant/Insurance Company challenging the Judgment and Award dated

¶25

¶26

19.11.2012 passed in M.V.C.No.70/2011 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT., XIII at Madhugiri (‘the Tribunal’ for short).

¶27

The factual matrix of the case is that the injured minor boy met with an accident on 16.02.2011 at about 2:45 p.m, when he was proceeding along with his father and another Anjinappa on Rantavalalu road from Hosakere to reach their house. At that time the rider of the Hero Honda Super Splendor bearing registration No.KA-06-EE-8225 was said to have been driven in high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the minor boy causing RTA, whereby the minor boy fell down and sustained grievous injuries.

¶28

This claim petition was opposed by the Insurance Company contending that it is a case of false implication and it is a self-fall and no such accident was taken place.

¶29

The claimant in order to substantiate his case, he himself examined the father as P.W.1 and also examined one Jayanna as P.W.2 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to

¶30

¶31

P12. The respondent examined one witness as RW.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.R1 to R6.

¶32

The Tribunal, after considering both oral and

¶33

documentary evidence available on record, not accepted the contention of the Insurance Company and allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.10,000/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till its realization. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Award of the Tribunal, the present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company before this Court.

¶34

The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would vehemently contend that the injured was taken to the hospital on the date of the accident itself on 16.02.2011. In Ex.R4 , it is specifically mentioned that it is a case of self-fall and the history given by the attender on 08.03.2011. On perusal of the history in the document-Ex.R4, the date is mentioned as 08.03.2011. The document-Ex.R4 is contrary to the statement made before the hospital on 16.02.2011, wherein, it is mentioned that the history was ‘self-fall’, but in the bottom of the document, it is mentioned the history was given by the

¶35

¶36

attender on 08.03.2011. In order to prove the document-Ex.R4 except examining RW.1, the official of the Insurance Company, none of the witness from the hospital has been examined. The author of the document-Ex.R4 has not been examined. The fact that the case of the claimant is that when the minor boy was proceeding along with his father, the accident was taken place. But, in the very document-Ex.R4, it is mentioned that the patient attender was given the history of RTA. When the father was with the injured, generally, the father will take the injured to the hospital, no where, it is mentioned that who gave the history, what is mentioned on 16.02.2011 and on 08.03.2011 are contrary to each other. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly not accepted the document Ex.R4. Except Ex.R4, no other document is placed before the Court. In the absence of proving of document-Ex.R4, the very contention of the Insurance Company that the history is ‘self-fall’ cannot be accepted.

¶37

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶38

following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

(i) The appeal is dismissed.

¶41

¶42

(ii) The amount in deposit, if any, is ordered to be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

cp*

M/S. Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited v. Srujan P Naik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited v. Srujan P Naik

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

The Branch Manager Vs N Ramaiah

Ranjith @ Ranju Vs the State of Karnataka

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Gangamma

Apoorva Vs Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.

Udaykumar Vs Chithramma

Sri Srinivas B L Vs Sri Sasi Knth Vallem