Dismissed

The Reliance General Ins. Co.Ltd, v. Raju

Karnataka HC10 Nov 2022MFA/1290/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed an appeal by an insurance company challenging a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The court held that since the car owner taking the injured party to the hospital and providing the history was undisputed, the alleged discrepancy in the claim cannot warrant setting aside the award.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed and the amount deposited by the Insurance Company is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal.

The Reliance General Ins. Co.Ltd, Vs Raju — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

M.F.A.NO.1290/2014 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE RELIANCE GENERAL INS. CO.LTD, REGIONAL OFFICE, EAST WING, 5^TH FLOOR, NO.28, CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560002. NOW REPRESENTED BY MANAGER LEGAL.

¶8

… APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI ASHOK N. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

RAJU, S/O SUBBAPPANA MADAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT PUTTEGOWDANAHUNDI VILLAGE, VARUNA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT.

¶12

LINGARAJU, S/O MALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, C/O. MAHADEVAPPA, R/AT NO.18/1, 4^TH MAIN ROAD, SRIKANTESHWARA NAGARA, M.L LAYOUT, BENGALURU-86.

¶13

C.D. VENKATESHA, S/O LATE DASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

¶14

¶15

R/AT NO.180/2, BAIRAPURA VILLAGE, VIDYANAGARA, T. NARASIPURA TOWN, MYSURU DISTRICT-571 124.

¶16

... RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI P. NATARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 14.01.2016, NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT, R3 IS SERVED)

¶18

THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.03.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.1067/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-I, ADDITIONAL MACT, MYSURU, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.3,13,000/WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION.

¶19

THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent No.1.

¶22

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company

¶23

challenging the judgment and award dated 20.03.2013, passed in M.V.C.No.1067/2012, on the file of the Presiding Officer, Fast Tract Court-I, Additional MACT, Mysore (‘the Tribunal’ for short).

¶24

The factual matrix of the case of the claimant before

¶25

the Tribunal is that he met with an accident on 06.09.2011 and

¶26

¶27

as a result, he sustained injuries. The Tribunal after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record awarded compensation of Rs.3,13,000/- with interest at 6% per annum.

¶28

The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would vehemently contend that the history was given in the hospital as involvement of motorcycle and car in the accident and there was a delay of three days in lodging the complaint and the claimant has twisted the facts stating that he was a pedestrian. In the wound certificate, history is contrary to the claim made by the claimant.

¶29

Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.1/claimant would submit that when the car hit the injured, the injured was taken to the hospital by the owner of the car himself and the owner himself has given the history when the injured was taken to the hospital.

¶30

Having heard the respective learned counsel and also

¶31

on perusal of the material available on record, the Insurance Company does not dispute the fact that the owner of the car himself took the injured to the hospital and gave the history.

¶32

¶33

While giving the history, the name is mentioned as C.D.Venkatesh. The Insurance Company does not dispute that C.D. Venkatesh is the owner of the car. When such being the case and when the involvement of the vehicle in the accident is not disputed, mere giving the history by the owner himself mentioning the motorcycle and car cannot be a ground to set aside the judgment and the fact that he himself took the injured to the hospital and given the history is not in dispute. Under the circumstances, I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company that the facts were twisted by the claimant. It is also the claim of the claimant that when he was proceeding as a pedestrian, the car hit him and the fact that the driver of the car took the injured to the hospital is not in dispute. Under the circumstances, no grounds are made out to set aside the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

¶34

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

¶35

ORDER

¶36

(i) The appeal is dismissed.

¶37

¶38

(ii) The amount in deposit made by the Insurance Company is ordered to be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.

¶39

(iii) The Registry is directed to transmit the records to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

The Reliance General Ins. Co.Ltd, v. Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Reliance General Ins. Co.Ltd, v. Raju

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

Sri. Jayappa Vs Sri. Jayappa. B

Sri Shanthakumar B J Vs the Divisional Manager

Mrs Avamma Vs Sri. Iqbal

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Shri N Ramachandra

The Regional Manager Vs Master Tharun C Gowda

Nataraju P G Vs State of Karnataka