Allowed

Branch Manager v. Ratnamma W/O Kotrappa

Karnataka HC11 Oct 2023MFA/1767/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the insurance company's appeal against a compensation award in a motor vehicle accident case and dismissed the claimant's appeal for enhancement. The Court held the claimant failed to discharge the initial burden of proving vehicle involvement, as the accident witness was not examined and the claimant denied knowing the rider.

What did the court decide?

The appeal of the Insurance Company is Allowed; the appeal of the claimant is Dismissed. The amount in deposit by the Insurance Company shall be transmitted to the Tribunal.

Branch Manager Vs Ratnamma W/O Kotrappa — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:37318 MFA No. 1767 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 8051 of 2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1767 OF 2012 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8051 OF 2012 (MV-I)

¶7

IN MFA NO. 1767/2012

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

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

¶10

BRANCH MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, OPP: DENTAL COLLEGE, MCC"B"BLOCK, DAVANGERE, NOW REPTD. BY REGIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INS. CO. LTD. REGIONAL OFFICE, SUBHARAM COMPLEX, 144, M G ROAD, BANGALORE - 560001

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

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

¶13

AND:

¶14

RATNAMMA

¶15

W/O KOTRAPPA

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:37318 MFA No. 1767 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 8051 of 2012

¶18

AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/AT NITTUVALLI,DAVANGERE

¶19

HEMNATH,

¶20

S/O MADAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

¶21

R/AT BELALAGERE VILLAGE

¶22

DAVANGERE

¶23

M.B. RAJAPPA

¶24

S/O BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT BELALAGERE VILLAGE DAVANGERE TALUK

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. RAGHU., ADVOCATE FOR; SRI. S. RAGHAVENDRA.,ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 - NOTICE SERVED; R3 - NOTICE D/W V/O DT: 28.03.2018)

¶27

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED03.08.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.651/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VI ADDITIONAL MACT, DAVANAGERE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF Rs.1,77,109/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶28

IN MFA NO. 8051 / 2012

¶29

BETWEEN:

¶30

RATNAMMA W/O KOTRAPPA

¶31

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:37318 MFA No. 1767 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 8051 of 2012

¶32

AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/O NITTUVALLI DAVANAGERE.

¶33

…APPELLANT

¶34

(BY SRI.RAGHU., ADVOCATE FOR; SRI. S. RAGHAVENDRA.,ADVOCATE)

¶35

AND:

¶36

HEMANTH S/O MADAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS BELALAGERE VILLAGE DAVANAGERE - 577 001.

¶37

M.B. RAJAPPA S/O BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS BELALAGERE VILLAGE DAVANAGERE TALUK - 577 001.

¶38

BRANCH MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, OPPOSITE DENTAL COLLEGE, MCC 'B' BLOCK DAVANAGERE - 577 001.

¶39

…RESPONDENTS

¶40

(BY R1 AND R2 - NOTICE D/W V/O DT: 18.06.2015; SRI. A.N. KRISHNA SWAMY.,ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶41

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED03.08.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.651/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL

¶42

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:37318 MFA No. 1767 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 8051 of 2012

¶43

JUDGE, VI ADDITIONAL MACT, DAVANAGERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶44

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

¶45

JUDGMENT

¶46

These appeals are preferred by the claimant as well

¶47

as the insurance company aggrieved by the award passed in MVC.No.651/2009 dated 03.08.2011 on the file of the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge & VII Addl. MACT, Davanagere. The appeal of the insurance company is MFA.No.1767/2012 and the appeal of the claimant for enhancement is MFA.No.8051/2012.

¶48

The claim petition is filed seeking compensation

¶49

of an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. It is the case of the claimant that on 29.12.2008 at about 7.00 p.m when the claimant was proceeding along with one Jayappa on the left side of the K.R. Road near LIC Office as a pedestrian,

¶50

¶51

NC: 2023:KHC:37318 MFA No. 1767 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 8051 of 2012

¶52

the respondent No.1 being the rider of the motor cycle came in high speed with rash and negligent manner dashed to the claimant. Due to that, the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries, immediately she was taken to Basaveshwara Health Centre, Davanagere where she took treatment as inpatient and spent an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards the medical expenses. Prior to the accident she was earning an amount of Rs.5,000/-, but due to the impact of the injuries she was not in a position to do her work. The court below on the issue number 1 and 2, had observed that PW-1 though has stated in the cross-examination, she doesn't know the rider and cause of the accident, but she has specifically denied the suggestion made by the learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company regarding non-involvement of the vehicle in the accident and its rider in the accident. The court observed that the burden again lies on the respondent-insurance company to prove that the bike in question was not at all involved in the accident, as the respondent-insurance company has not taken further

¶53

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:37318 MFA No. 1767 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 8051 of 2012

¶54

steps. The court below considering the complaint, the charge sheet had held that accident had taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the offending vehicle and as the insurance company has insured the vehicle, they are liable to pay the compensation. Then coming to the compensation, an amount of Rs.1,77,109/- was awarded as compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant.

¶55

Learned counsel for the claimant submits that

¶56

court below has granted only a meager amount of Rs.1,77,109/-as compensation. Under the head of pain and suffering only an amount of Rs.15,000/- was awarded and towards loss of income during the laid up period, only an amount of Rs.5,330/- was granted. Learned counsel submits that even the income that was considered and the amount that was granted under the head of loss of future income was also on the lower side. It is submitted that the compensation that was granted by the Tribunal was not just and reasonable.

¶57

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:37318 MFA No. 1767 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 8051 of 2012

¶58

The learned counsel for the insurance company

¶59

submits that when the claimant had filed the petition under section 166 of the MV Act, the burden lies on the claimant to show the involvement of the vehicle and negligence on the part of the offending vehicle. It is submitted that, according to the claimant she was walking on the road along with one Jayappa and they have appointed the Investigator, before the Investigator she has stated that respondent No.1 is not involved in the accident and she has not sustained injuries because of the accident. Further in the cross examination also, she has stated that offending vehicle belongs to her son-in-law and respondent no.1 is son of one Madappa and her son-inlaw, M.B. Rajappa and her husband have come to the hospital, the next day. In this case, the complaint was lodged next day after the accident. Learned counsel submits that when they have not examined the eyewitness i.e., Jayappa and when the claimant was not supporting the case of the claimant, when her evidence was not in

¶60

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:37318 MFA No. 1767 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 8051 of 2012

¶61

support of their case, the court below ought not to have held that the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation as the involvement of vehicle itself is doubtful. In response to that, learned counsel for the claimant submits that claimant do not know the rider of the vehicle and details of the offending vehicle. However she has denied in the cross examination that vehicle belonging to the respondent No.1 was not involved in the accident. He submits that Court below had rightly considered this issue.

¶62

Having heard the learned counsels on the either side, perused the entire material on record. The eye witness to the incident is claimant as well as one Jayappa. Admittedly Jayappa was not examined in this case. The claimant says that she has not seen the vehicle and the person who was riding the vehicle and she has accepted that the Investigator visited their House. It is stated in the cross-examination that she has not filed the complaint on the same day and she was not aware who has caused

¶63

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:37318 MFA No. 1767 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 8051 of 2012

¶64

the accident and owner of the offending vehicle Sri M.B. Rajappa is none other than son-in-law of the claimant. Respondent No.1 i.e, rider of the vehicle is son of Madappa. It is also stated after the next day of the occurance of the accident, to see her husband, Madappa, Hemanth, Jayappa, Basappa, Basavarappa had visited to the Hospital. All the evidence of the claimant herein shows that vehicle has been implicated in this case. The claimant had failed to substantiate their case by leading cogent evidence. The court below had wrongly shifted the burden

¶65

on insurance company, whereas the initial burden lies on the claimant, the involvement of vehicle itself is doubtful.

¶66

Accordingly, the appeal of the Insurance Company i.e., MFA.No.1767/2012 is Allowed and the appeal of the claimant i.e., MFA.No.8051/2012 is

¶67

Dismissed.

¶68

(a) The amount in deposit by the Insurance Company shall be forthwith transmitted to the Tribunal.

¶69

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:37318 MFA No. 1767 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 8051 of 2012

¶70

(b) The Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Record to the Tribunal along with the certified copy of the order passed by this court forthwith without any delay.

¶71

¶72

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall

stand closed.

SD/JUDGE

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

Branch Manager v. Ratnamma W/O Kotrappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Branch Manager v. Ratnamma W/O Kotrappa

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 L Devaram Vs Sri Shivaram

Thimmareddy S/O Channareddy Vs Manjunath S/O Narayana Gowda

Smt Laxmi Wife of Seena Vs Haneef Son of Abbas Byari

Ayub Khan Vs Sri Katriyesan

Mahadevaiah Vs H M Devaraju

Sri Arun Kumar Shetty Vs Sri Syed Zainulla Bussin Daniyal