Dismissed

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. M. Sulochana

Karnataka HC16 Nov 2022MFA/697/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On a final hearing in an appeal filed by an insurance company against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award, the High Court of Karnataka rejected the contention that the deceased was not a bus passenger or that the relationship between the claimant and deceased was unproven, dismissing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed and the deposited amount is ordered to be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal.

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. M. Sulochana — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

M.F.A.NO.697/2016 (MV-D)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.44/45, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX, RESIDENCY ROAD CROSS, BENGALURU-560025. BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER.

¶8

… APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI RAVISHANKAR C.R., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SMT. M. SULOCHANA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, W/O LATE S.H.RAMACHANDRAIAH, R/AT NO.140/A, LALBAGH FORT ROAD, PARVATHIPURA, BENGALURU-560004.

¶12

M/S. THRIVENI EARTH MOVERS PVT. LTD., NARAYANAKERE VILLAGE, KALKUNTE POST, VIA KADUGODI, HOSKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU NORTH-560067

¶13

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC, BENGALURU RURAL DIVISION, B.M.ROAD RAMANAGARAM-571 511.

¶14

... RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI N.GOPAL KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI D. VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R2 IS SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

¶16

¶17

THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.07.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.5114/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXXII ACMM, MEMBER-MACT, BANGALORE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.2,15,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 8% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶18

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

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

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

¶21

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 23.07.2015, passed in M.V.C.No.5114/2012, on the file of the VIII Additional Small Causes Judge and XXXII ACMM, Member-MACT, Bengaluru (‘the Tribunal’ for short).

¶22

The learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that the Tribunal has committed an error in passing the judgment and award and failed to take note of both oral and documentary evidence available on record. The Tribunal erred in not appreciating the fact that the deceased Muniswamy was not at all a passenger in the KSRTC bus at the

¶23

¶24

time of the alleged accident. In fact, the responsible officer of the KSRTC had lodged the complaint to the jurisdictional Attibele Police Station stating the names of the persons who were traveling in the KSRTC bus and the name of the deceased Muniswamy was not found in the FIR or charge-sheet. When such being the material on record, the Tribunal ought not to have considered the claim petition. The learned counsel contends that the injured subsequently died and one Smt. Basamma had been arraigned as a party to the proceedings and she also died and subsequently one Smt. Sulochana was brought on record. No material is placed before the Court with regard to the relationship between the deceased and Smt. Sulochana and all these aspects has not been considered by the Tribunal. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.

¶25

Per contra, the learned counsel for the

¶26

respondent/claimant would vehemently contend that there is no dispute with regard to the accident and in order to prove the fact that the deceased Muniswamy had sustained injury in the accident, Exs.P.4 to 6 are produced before the Court for having taken the treatment at Blossom Hospital as well as Bengaluru Hospital and death certificate is also produced. The learned

¶27

¶28

counsel submits that the compensation awarded is only towards medical bills and conventional heads and not awarded any compensation under other heads i.e., loss of dependency. The learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court that in order to prove the relationship between the claimant Sulochana and the deceased Muniswamy, Ex.P.9 ration card is produced. Hence, the contention of the Insurance Company cannot be accepted.

¶29

Having heard the respective learned counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, particularly Ex.P.4, the injured was taken to the hospital immediately after the accident, wherein history is mentioned in respect of the deceased Muniswamy that the patient came with history of RTA on 17.07.2012 and the injured was examined by the doctor Lingaraju and he had multiple fractures and wound and was advised to admit for further management and he was taken to Bangalore Hospital, wherein also history was given and he was admitted in the hospital from 17.07.2012 to 30.07.2012 and subsequently he died. The death certificate is produced as Ex.P.6 and the claim is not considered with regard to loss of dependency and the Tribunal only considered the medical bills

¶30

¶31

and conventional head. In order to prove the relationship between the parties, Ex.P.9 ration card is produced, which discloses that she is the daughter of the deceased. When such material is placed before the Court, the very contention of the Insurance Company that no relationship is established with regard to the deceased and the claimant cannot be accepted. The documents also disclose that the injured was taken to the hospital immediately after the accident on 17.07.2012 and the Tribunal has taken note of the bus ticket which is produced before the Court and though the same is not marked, it is available on record. When such being the case, the very contention that Muniswamy has not traveled in the bus cannot be accepted. Hence, I do not find any ground to reverse the finding of the Trial Court to come to other conclusion.

¶32

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶33

following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

(i) The appeal is dismissed

¶36

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

¶37

¶38

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

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. M. Sulochana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. M. Sulochana

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

Smt. Manjula Vs Prasanna Kumara

The Managing Director Vs Kum. Sindhu

The Managing Director Vs Smt. Girija Bhaskar

Vimala @ Hemalatha Vs M.M.J.Somashekharappa

Legal Manager Vs Bherulal

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs Ravikumar