Partly allowed

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nagarathna

Karnataka HC7 Dec 2023MFA/1216/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the insurance company's appeal in part, setting aside an award of compensation for a motor accident death. The court held that claimants failed to prove vehicle involvement or driver negligence due to lack of medical records and contradictory IMV evidence.

What did the court decide?

Award of compensation set aside; insurance company at liberty to withdraw deposited amount; original records to be returned to the Tribunal.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Nagarathna — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:47111 MFA No. 1216 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1216 OF 2018 (MV-D)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., YASHORAM CHAMBER, R.G.ROAD, CHIKKAMAGALURU, THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, #144, SUBHARAM COMPLEX, M.G ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001, REP BY ITS ASST. MANAGER, SRI.S.RAMESH.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI.SEETHARAMA RAO B.C.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by JAI JYOTHI J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SMT.NAGARATHNA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, W/O LATE C.N.MALLIKARJUNA,

¶13

KUM.AMRUTHA, AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS, D/O LATE C.N.MALLIKARJUNA.

¶14

KUM.LEELA, AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS, D/O LATE C.N.MALLIKARJUNA,

¶15

RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 BEING MINORS, REP. BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN,

¶16

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:47111 MFA No. 1216 of 2018

¶17

SMT, NAGARATHNA, THE FIRST RESPONDENT HEREIN.

¶18

SRI.NAGARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O THIMMAIAH.

¶19

SMT.JAYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, W/O SRI.NAGARAJAPPA.

¶20

SRI.GURUMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O LATE VENKATARAMU.

¶21

(RIDER OF BAJAJ DISCOVER M/C NO.KA.18/U-8353)

¶22

SRI.UMESHA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O SRI.NAGARAJAPPA,

¶23

(RC OWNER OF BAJAJ DISCOVER M/C NO.KA.18/U-8353)

¶24

ALL THE RESPONDENTS ARE RESIDENTS OF ANCHE CHOMANAHALLI VILLAGE, KERESANTHE POST, SINGATAGERE HOBLI, KADUR TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI.KIRAN KUMAR H FOR R6.,ADVOCATE)

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:47111 MFA No. 1216 of 2018

¶28

(R1, R4, R5, R7 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED, R2 AND R3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R1)

¶29

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.10.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.38/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, KADUR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.9,53,000/WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.

¶30

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

This is an appeal filed by the Insurance Company aggrieved by the award passed in M.V.C No.38/2015, dated 30.10.2017 by the Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal at Kadur, Chikkamangaluru. The claim petition was filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in the accident.

¶33

The case of the claimant i.e., the wife of the deceased, is that on 09.03.2014 at about 10.00 p.m., the deceased was proceeding on a motorcycle as a pillion rider and one Sri. Gurumurthy was riding the said vehicle, who

¶34

drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and

¶35

¶36

NC: 2023:KHC:47111 MFA No. 1216 of 2018

¶37

dashed the motor cycle to the road side tree. Consequently, the deceased sustained grievous injuries, and immediately he was shifted to the Government hospital and he succumbed to the injuries.

¶38

It is the case of the Insurance Company that the deceased was not a pillion rider and the accident had not occurred in the manner stated in the petition. The vehicle belongs to the brother of the deceased and without there being any accident, for the purpose of claiming compensation colluded together and implicated this vehicle.

¶39

The Court below, based on the police records,

¶40

held that the accident had taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the vehicle and granted the compensation under the following heads:

¶41

	Heads		Co	mpensation Awarded
1.	Towards loss of income	:	Rs.	9,18,000/-
2.	Towards loss of estate	:	Rs.	5,000/-
3.	Towards loss of consortium	:	Rs.	10,000/-

¶42

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:47111 MFA No. 1216 of 2018

¶43

4.	Towards loss of love and affection	:	Rs.	10,000/-
5.	Towards funeral expenses, transportation of dead body and other miscellaneous expenses	:	Rs.	10,000/-
	TOTAL	:	Rs.	9,53,000/-

¶44

In this appeal, the notice is served on all the

¶45

respondents except the alleged rider of the vehicle, Sri.Gurumurthy. The others are not represented by the advocate. The learned counsel appearing for the appellantInsurance Company submits that, as per the evidence of the wife of the deceased, in the cross examination, the vehicle belongs to the brother of the deceased. Learned counsel submits that because of rash and negligent driving of Sri.Gurumurthy, the accident had taken place. He was eye witness to the accident. He should have been examined by the claimants.

¶46

It is submitted that he was taken to the

¶47

Government hospital, but no medical records are produced by them and they failed to prove that the vehicle was involved in the accident. There is negligence on the part of

¶48

¶49

NC: 2023:KHC:47111 MFA No. 1216 of 2018

¶50

the rider of the vehicle. It is submitted that as per the I.M.V. Report, there is no damage to the vehicle. It is submitted that as narrated, if the vehicle dashes against the banyan tree, the front portion of the vehicle would be damaged, whereas, as per the IMV report, there are scratches on the head right visor. He submits that all these circumstances clearly show that the vehicle was not involved in the accident and for the purpose of claiming compensation; the vehicle has been implicated in this case. He submits that the pillion rider suffered fatal injuries and succumbed to the same. There is nothing forthcoming to show that the rider of the vehicle had sustained any injuries. It is submitted that all these circumstances raise the question about the manner in which the accident had taken place and the involvement of the vehicle. The Court below had failed to consider all these issues and held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. There is no representation on behalf of the 6^th respondent.

¶51

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:47111 MFA No. 1216 of 2018

¶52

Having heard the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, perused the entire material on record. This is an application filed under Section 166 of the MV Act seeking compensation for the death of the deceased in the accident and the burden lies on the claimants to prove the involvement of the vehicle and the negligence on the part of the rider. In this case, he was immediately taken to the government hospital for the best reason known to the claimant. They did not file any medical records. When the rider of the vehicle was shown

¶53

as respondent and according to claimants, because of his rash and negligent driving, the accident had taken place. Claimants have not taken any steps to examine and even

¶54

the IMV report also do not support the case of the claimant. Considering all these circumstances this Court is of the considered opinion that the claimants have failed to prove the involvement of the vehicle and as well as the negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle.

¶55

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:47111 MFA No. 1216 of 2018

¶56

Accordingly, the appeal of the insurance company

¶57

is allowed-in-part setting aside the award passed in M.V.C.No.38/2015 dated 30.10.2017.

¶58

i) The Insurance Company is at liberty to withdraw the deposited amount.

¶59

ii. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay.

¶60

iii. No costs.

¶61

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶62

SD/JUDGE

¶63

RMS

¶64

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nagarathna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nagarathna

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. Kadirappa Vs Sri. Ramanna. v. v.

Arpitha Vs K M Dore Raj

Sri. Hemanth Kumar Vs Sri. Sunil Kumar H M

Manjunatha Vs Dhanalakshmi

Rajappa Vs Sri Frankilin Dayananda

Sri. Subraya Badiya Naik Vs Sri. Nagaraj