Partly allowed

The Manager the National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gurumurthappa @ Murthy

Karnataka HC19 Oct 2022MFA/3263/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Motor Insurance Company's appeal and dismissed the Motor Accident Claimant's appeal. The Court held that the Tribunal committed an error of law/fact by ignoring documentary evidence proving the claimant gave false history of a road traffic accident to fabricate a claim for insurance compensation.

What did the court decide?

M.F.A. No. 3263/2014 by Insurance Co. allowed; Tribunal judgment set aside and claim petition dismissed; M.F.A. No. 6912/2015 by claimant dismissed; deposit refunded to Insurance Co.

The Manager the National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

M.F.A.NO.3263/2014 (MV-I) C/W M.F.A.NO.6912/2015 (MV-I)

¶6

M.F.A.NO.3263/2014:

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., LAXMI BAZAAR, CHITRADURGA. NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, SUBHARAM COMPLEX, 144, MG ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.

¶9

...APPELLANT

¶10

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

¶11

AND:

¶12

GURUMURTHAPPA @ MURTHY, S/O POOJAR GURAPPA, NOW AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC:COOLIE, R/O HALE RANGAPURA VILLAGE, BHARAMASAGARA HOBLI, CHITRADURGA TALUK.

¶13

OBAPPA, S/O HANUMAPPA, NOW AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OWNER OF MOTORCYCLE,

¶14

¶15

R/O HALAVUDARA, BHARAMASAGARA HOBLI, CHITRADURGA TALUK.

¶16

SINCE DECEASED BY LRS.

¶17

2(A) SMT. MANJAMMA, W/O OBAPPA,

¶18

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.

¶19

2(B) LOHITH KUMAR, S/O OBAPPA,

¶20

AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.

¶21

BOTH ARE R/AT HALAVUDARA VILLAGE, BHARAMASAGARA HOBLI, CHITRADURGA TALUK & DISTRICT.

¶22

...RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2(A) AND 2(B) ARE SERVED)

¶24

THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.02.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.1459/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE & ADDL., MACT, CHITRADURGA AWARDING A SUM OF RS.2,22,700/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶25

M.F.A.NO.6912/2015:

¶26

BETWEEN:

¶27

GURUMURTHAPPA @ MURTHY, S/O POOJAR GURAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O HALE RANGAPURA VILLAGE, BHARAMASAGARA HOBLI, CHITRADURGA TQ-577519 .

¶28

...APPELLANT

¶29

(BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N, ADVOCATE)

¶30

¶31

AND:

¶32

M/S. NATIONAL INS. CO. LTD., MANAGER, LAXMI BAZAR, CHITRADURGA-577501.

¶33

OBAPPA, S/O HANUMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OWNER OF HERO HONDA SPLENDOR NO.KA-16/R8476, R/O HALAVUDARA, BHARAMASAGARA HOBLI, CHITRADURGA TQ & DIST-577519.

¶34

...RESPONDENTS

¶35

(BY SRI A.N. KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R1, VIDE ORDER DATED 17.10.2016, NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶36

THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.02.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.1459/2009 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE & ADDITIONAL MACT, CHITRADURGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶37

THESE M.F.As. COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶38

J U D G M E N T

¶39

Heard the respective learned counsel in both the appeals.

¶40

M.F.A.No.3263/2014 is filed by the Insurance

¶41

Company and M.F.A.No.6912/2015 is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 22.02.2014, passed in M.V.C.No.1459/2009, on the file of the Additional District and

¶42

¶43

Sessions Judge and Additional MACT, Chitradurga (‘the Tribunal’ for short).

¶44

The factual matrix of the case of the claimant before the Tribunal is that on 14.10.2008 at about 5.30 p.m. at Sirigeri Halerangapura, nearby land of Sirigere Muthugadur Shivalingappa, when he was walking on the left side of the road, at that time, the rider of the motorcycle came in high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him, as a result, he had sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Sirigere Government Hospital and thereafter shifted to C.G. Hospital, Davanagere for further treatment and also admitted to Bapuji Hospital, Davanagere for

¶45

better treatment. He was an inpatient from 14.10.2008 to 27.12.2008 and he was subjected to surgery and spent more than Rs.1,50,000/-. The Insurance Company appeared and filed the written statement disputing the very accident. The claimant in order to substantiate his claim, examined himself as P.W.1 and examined two doctors as P.W.2 and P.W.3 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 15. On the other hand, the respondent examined one witness as R.W.1 and got marked the

¶46

¶47

documents at Exs.R.1 to 3. The Tribunal after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, allowed the claim petition granting compensation of Rs.2,22,700/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Hence, the present appeals are filed before this Court.

¶48

The main contention of the Insurance Company is that the claimant has played the fraud. At the first instance, when he was taken to the hospital he himself has given the history that while traveling in the motorcycle, he had sustained injuries. The learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court the documents of Ex.P.7 and Ex.R.2. Ex.P.7 is the case sheet of Bapuji Hospital, wherein he took treatment and Ex.R.2 is the MLC extract of Sirigere Hospital. Referring these two documents and also the evidence elicited from the mouth of P.W.2 regarding the history given, the learned counsel submits that inspite of the material placed before the Court that falsely implicating the vehicle, the Tribunal not accepted the evidence of the Insurance Company. The learned counsel submits that there is a delay of 14 days in lodging the complaint. The accident was occurred on 14.10.2008 and the complaint was given on 28.10.2008 through the father of the injured. The learned counsel brought to the

¶49

¶50

notice of this Court the spot mahazar, wherein the motorcycle had dashed against the bridge and also there are marks. It is the case of the Insurance Company that the claimant himself went and hit the bridge and sustained the injuries and the same has not been considered by the Tribunal and hence it requires interference of this Court.

¶51

Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimant submits that in terms of Ex.P.4 – wound certificate, history is mentioned as RTA by bike. Though other documents reveal that while going in motorcycle he had sustained injuries, the same is not substantiated by placing any material before the Court. Hence, the very contention of the Insurance Company cannot be accepted. The learned counsel for the claimant contends that the compensation awarded is also very meager. He was an inpatient in the hospital for a period of 75 days and disability taken is 15% and hence it requires interference of this Court to enhance the compensation.

¶52

Having heard the respective learned counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, the points that arise for the consideration of this Court are:

¶53

¶54

(i) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in allowing the claim petition in not accepting the defence of the Insurance Company that it is a case of fraud or implication of the vehicle?

¶55

(ii) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding just and reasonable compensation and whether it requires interference of this Court?

¶56

(iii) What order?

¶57

Point No.(i):

¶58

Having heard the respective learned counsel and also

¶59

on perusal of the material on record, it is not in dispute that the accident was occurred on 14.10.2008 and it is the contention of the Insurance Company that the accident occurred at 5.30 p.m. Immediately after the accident, he was taken to Sirigere Hospital wherein he has given the history as RTA by bike while going in the motorcycle and the injured was referred to higher centre and accordingly he was shifted to Bapuji Hospital. In Bapuji Hospital, history was given as while traveling in motor bike, he had sustained injuries. It is the case of the claimant that while going by walk along with one Kumar, motorcyclist came and dashed against both of them, as a result, both of them have sustained

¶60

¶61

injuries. On perusal of the complaint, which is given after 14 days, it is mentioned that both of them were walking on the road and the motorcyclist came and dashed against them. On perusal of Ex.P.4, Ex.P.7 and Ex.R.3, it is mentioned as while traveling in the motorcycle, he had sustained injuries. The claimant made an attempt to convince this Court stating that only it is mentioned as RTA by bike in terms of Ex.P.4 and the said contention cannot be accepted. On perusal of Ex.P.4 wound certificate issued by Sirigere CMC Hospital, it is not only mentioned as RTA by bike and it is continued as while going to Halerangapura at 6.30 p.m. on 14.10.2008, he had sustained injuries and he was brought by his brother Jayappa. The details of history given as RTA by bike cannot be considered and the Court has to read the entire history given in the wound certificate Ex.P.4. Ex.P.4 also does not come to the aid of the claimant.

¶62

Ex.P.7 is the case sheet of Bapuji Hospital. The claimant was taken to the hospital on the same day and there also he has given history as RTA while traveling in a bike. While giving the complaint after 14 days, the facts are twisted as when he was walking on the road with one Kumar, the motorcyclist

¶63

¶64

has caused the accident. It has to be noted that in the crossexamination of P.W.1, he says that at the time of accident he was along with one Kumar, but there is no material as to whether Kumar has taken treatment or not. In the crossexamination also he categorically says that both of them sustained injuries. He admits that except both of them, no one were there at the spot and the width of the road is 12 feet and he also admits that there was a bridge on the left side of the road and the same is not disputed. In the cross-examination, a suggestion was made that he himself went and hit the bridge. Though he denied the spot mahazar, it is brought to the notice of this Court wherein there was a mark of hitting the bridge and hence the material available on record substantiates the contention of the Insurance Company. He admits that Kumar was having conscious and was able to speak and the complaint was not given immediately either by himself or through his relative or also other person Kumar. The said Kumar is also not examined before the Court.

¶65

P.W.2 during the course of cross-examination

¶66

categorically says that when the injured came to the hospital he was not unconscious and he was speaking. Hence, it is clear

¶67

¶68

that he has not lost conscious and Ex.P.7 discloses that there was no loss of consciousness and history was given by himself. P.W.2 admits that as per the history, accident was occurred while the claimant was traveling on bike on 14.10.2008 and hence it is clear that after 14 days of the accident, the facts of the case are twisted in order to make wrongful gain. These are the admissions and the documents available before the Court and oral and documentary evidence placed on record corroborates the case of the Insurance Company and there is no explanation on the part of the claimant with regard to giving of history as RTA by bike while going to Halerangapura. If he was not having conscious, then the very contention of the learned counsel for the claimant would have been accepted. The material documents, both oral and documentary evidence placed on record discloses that the facts of the case are twisted and real truth is mentioned in the documents of Ex.P.4, Ex.P.7 and Ex.R.2. When such being the case, the Tribunal has lost sight of all these material available before the Court and ought not to have entertained the claim petition when there is a clear twisting of facts. The claimant committed fraud in order to bring the claim petition within the purview of Motor Accidents Claim

¶69

¶70

Tribunal and hence the finding given by the Tribunal and allowing the claim petition is nothing but erroneous order and fraud and justice should not dwell together and hence it requires interference of this Court. Hence, I answer point No.(i) that the Insurance Company has succeeded in reversing the finding of the Trial Court.

¶71

Point No.(ii):

¶72

Does not arise for consideration.

¶73

Point No.(iii):

¶74

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶75

following:

¶76

ORDER

¶77

(i) M.F.A.No.3263/2014 filed by the Insurance Company is allowed.

¶78

(ii) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 22.02.2014, passed in M.V.C.No.1459/2009, is set aside and consequently the claim petition is dismissed.

¶79

(iii) M.F.A.No.6912/2015 filed by the claimant is dismissed.

¶80

¶81

(iv) The amount in deposit is ordered to be refunded in favour of the Insurance Company, on proper identification.

¶82

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

¶83

Sd/JUDGE

¶84

The Manager the National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gurumurthappa @ Murthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Manager the National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gurumurthappa @ Murthy

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

Divisional Manager , Vs Subhan Sab

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Shri S.a.Nathan

Sri Subbaraya Reddy Vs the United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

N. Thippeswamy Vs C. Rajappa

Sri C Rajappa Vs Sri N Thippeswamy

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd Vs Smt Safia