Appeal by insurer challenging compensation award against it under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Court affirmed Tribunal's finding that accident occurred and dismissed appeal.
The appeal was dismissed. The amount in deposit was ordered to be transferred to the Tribunal for necessary orders.
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 AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3673 OF 2017 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BRANCH OFFICE, SUGUNA NURSING HOME COMPLEX, ANTHARAGANGE ROAD, NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND, KOLAR – 563 101.
BY
REGIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., 5TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE – 560 027
BY ITS MANAGER.
... APPELLANT
[BY SRI. O.MAHESH, ADVOCATE (THROUGH VC)]
AND:
2
… RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 IS SERVED AND THEY ARE UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.02.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.399/2015 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR, (SITTING AT KGF), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.4,84,500/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF PETITION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is filed by the insurer challenging the liability fastened on it to pay the compensation awarded by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kolar (sitting at KGF) and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for the sake of brevity) in MVC No.399/2015.
4
on the way near Kogilahalli village gate on BangaloreChennai NH-4 road, a vibrator roller vehicle bearing registration No.MP-52-DA-0114 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle) was parked on the left side of the tar road without any indication. It is stated that the deceased could not notice the vibrator roller parked on the road as he was blinded by the bright head light of a vehicle coming from the opposite direction. The deceased dashed against the vibrator roller and due to the impact, the deceased sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital. The claimants filed a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and contended that the deceased was 26 years old and was earning Rs.40,000/- per annum.
5
claim petition was set down for trial. Claimant No.1 was examined as PW.1 and she marked Exs.P1 to P11 while the insurer examined its official as RW.1 and he marked Ex.R1, which was the MLC extract of R.L. Jalappa hospital.
6
vehicles and therefore, having regard to the fact that the complaint was lodged soon after the accident, the Tribunal held that it was probable that the accident occurred between the motorcycle ridden by the deceased and the vibrator roller owned by respondent No.1 and insured by respondent No.2. The Tribunal, therefore, based on preponderance of probabilities, held that the claimants had proved the accident. However, since the claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Act, the Tribunal did not insist upon the proof of negligence and awarded compensation of Rs.4,84,500/- in all along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization.
7. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment
and award of the Tribunal, the insurer is in appeal and contends that Ex.R1, extract of MLC report, maintained by R.L Jalappa hospital indicated that the accident was due to a hit and run by an unknown vehicle. The learned counsel therefore contended that the vehicle in question has been
7
implicated only to lay a false claim. Learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court Ex.P1, which is the complaint lodged by the pillion rider who stated that the deceased dashed against a stationed vehicle but had not given out the registration number. Learned counsel, therefore, contended that this was a clear case of implication of a vehicle to lodge a false claim.
8
jurisdictional Police who registered Crime No.66/2010 took up investigation and conducted a spot mahazar (Ex.P2) on 19.09.2010 and found that the vehicle in question which was parked by the side of the road was the offending vehicle which was owned by the owner and insured by the insurer herein. No doubt the jurisdictional Police have registered an abated charge sheet against the deceased. That in itself would not exonerate the liability of the insurer since the petition filed was under Section 163A of the Act. All that had to be proved was occurrence of the accident involving the motorcycle and the offending vehicle insured by the insurer. It is clear from Exs.P1, P2, P3, P4, P5 and P7 that the motorcycle ridden by the deceased and the offending vehicle insured by the insurer were involved in the accident.
the appreciation of evidence by the Tribunal and in awarding a compensation of a sum of Rs.4,84,500/- along
9
with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization.
Hence, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.
The amount in deposit is ordered to be transferred to
the Tribunal for necessary orders.
Sd/JUDGE
sma
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the insurer's contention that the accident was a false claim due to implication of the vehicle is sustainable in light of the Tribunal's findings.
Whether the insurer is liable to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
United India Insurance Company Limited
Smt. Prameela Bai
Bharath Singh
Lanco Infratech Ltd.
Nataraj Rangaswamy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
