Allowed

National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Sri H J Somashekara

Karnataka HC30 Aug 2023MFA/7181/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this appeal against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award, the Court found that the respondent's insurance policy expired on 10.06.2003 while the accident occurred on 18.06.2003. The Court held that interpolations in the cover note were made to show a valid policy date, concluding the insurer is not liable.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed. The Insurance Company shall transmit the amount deposited to the Court below.

National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Sri H J Somashekara — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:30958 MFA No. 7181 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7181 OF 2014 (MV-I)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., HASSAN BRANCH, THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.144, SUBHARAM COMPLEX, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. REP. BY ITS ADMN. OFFICER, MR. MOHITH CHAWLA.

¶7

…APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SRI. SHUBHAM N. M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SEETHARAMA RAO B. C., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

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

¶11

SRI. H.J. SOMASHEKARA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, POLICE CONSTABLE, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.8(A), HOUSING BOARD, HASSAN - 573 201.

¶12

DECEASED BY LR'S

¶13

1(a) SMT. ROOPA H. L., AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, W/O LATE. H.J. SOMASHEKARA.

¶14

1(b) KUM. HARSHITHA S., AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, D/O LATE. H.J. SOMASHEKARA.

¶15

1(c) KUM. VINUTHA S., AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS, D/O LATE. H.J. SOMASHEKARA.

¶16

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:30958 MFA No. 7181 of 2014

¶17

SINCE R1(C) IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER R1(A) SMT. ROOPA H. C.,

¶18

R1(A) TO R1(C) ARE RESIDING AT NO.8(A), 27TH CROSS, KUVEMPUNAGARA, HASSAN, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201.

¶19

MR. SARDAR HUSSAIN, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O MR. KHALANDAR HUSSAIN, RESIDENT OF HULIYAR ROAD, I CROSS, ARASIKERE - 573 103. (OWNER OF LORRY NO.KA.13/4915)

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. GURUSWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 (A TO C); R2 - IS SERVED)

¶22

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:21.07.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.2057/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, ADDITIONAL MACT, HASSAN, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.40,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.

¶23

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

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

The present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company aggrieved by the judgment and award passed in MVC No.2057/2006 dated 31.07.2017. The claim petition was filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant.

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:30958 MFA No. 7181 of 2014

¶27

The case of the claimant is that, on 18.06.2003 at

¶28

about 6.30 a.m., when the claimant along with others was proceeding in an Auto. The offending vehicle driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed the petitioner's Auto. Due to the said impact, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and taken treatment at S.C Hospital, Hassan and as an inpatient for one and half months and then at Nimhans Hospital, Bengaluru. He has spent more than Rs.30,000/towards medical expenses. Earlier the Court below has allowed the claim petition and against that, MFA No.8068/2009 was filed and this Court by judgment dated 29.02.2012, has remanded the matter back to the Tribunal.

¶29

It is the case of the appellant-Insurance company that, there are interpolations in the cover note and as per the policy, it is effect from 11.06.2002 to 10.06.2003. The Insurance Company had not produced the insurance policy and the premium payment register. Hence, the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal by this Court. After remand, the Court below has again passed an order granting compensation of an amount of Rs.40,000/-.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2023:KHC:30958 MFA No. 7181 of 2014

¶32

It is the case of the Insurance Company before the Court below that, the offending lorry was not insured with the second respondent as on the date of the accident. After remand of the case, they got examined Administrative Officer as RW1 and got marked Ex.R1 to R5. As per his evidence the respondent vehicle was insured with the second respondent for the period from 11.06.2002 to 10.06.2003 and the accident had occurred on 18.06.2003, after expiry of policy period. The claimant has placed the cover note before the Court showing that, policy is in effect from 11.06.2003 to 30.08.2003. In the said cover note, they have fabricated and there is interpolation. There is interpolation in respect of issuance date also. In the place of six it has been corrected as eight and the same has been filed before the Court. It is contended by the learned counsel for Insurance Company that the claimant has played fraud on the Court.

¶33

The Court below on this issue has held that, the length end of left side Ex.P8 i.e., cover note is perused the date mentioned as 10.08.2002. According to the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 date of the commencement of Ex.P8 is from 11.06.2002 to 10.06.2003 and if that being the case the

¶34

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:30958 MFA No. 7181 of 2014

¶35

date of issue of Ex.P8 ought to have been 11.08.2002 and not 10.08.2002 as mentioned on the left corner of Ex.P8. Basing on that the Court has come to the conclusion that, there is an existing policy as on the date of the accident. There is an interpolation as well as issuance date also.

¶36

Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that, the Court completely fail to appreciate the exhibits marked on behalf of the Insurance Company i.e., Ex.R1 to R5. It is submitted that, the claimant conveniently has filed only the cover note, but failed to file the Insurance Policy which was issued. The Insurance Policy clearly shows that, the policy is from 11.06.2002 to 10.06.2003. He submits that, after the accident the owner of the vehicle has taken another policy i.e., from 30.08.2003 to 29.08.2004. They have also marked Ex.R4 premium register extract which shows that, he paid the premium on 11.06.2003 and by filing the same they could establish before the Court that, fraud was played by the claimant for getting the compensation.

¶37

This matter was listed on 28.08.2023 and again on 29.09.2023 on that day also there no representation on behalf of the respondents. The Court has heard learned counsel for

¶38

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:30958 MFA No. 7181 of 2014

¶39

the appellant and for giving an opportunity to the respondents. The matter is posted today under the caption judgment, today also there is no representation on behalf of the respondents. Hence, this Court is inclined to decide the case on the available material on record.

¶40

This Court has perused Ex.R2 policy which clearly shows that, the policy is valid from 11.06.2002 to 10.06.2003 further Ex.R5 the premium register extract strengthen the case of the respondents as the premium was paid on 11.06.2002. When the premium was paid on 11.06.2002 the question of issuing the policy on 11.08.2002 does not arise. On perusal of Ex.P8 the cover note discloses that, at three paras the numbers '6' i.e., month June was corrected as '8' to show that as August month and to get the compensation amount. The Court below failed to consider the evidence adduced on behalf of the respondents and looking at the issuance date at the bottom has come to the wrong conclusion that the there is a valid policy as on the date of the accident. In view of the above discussion particularly looking at Ex.R2 and Ex.R4. This Court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that, there is interpolation and the policy is effective from 11.06.2002 to 10.06.2003 and

¶41

¶42

NC: 2023:KHC:30958 MFA No. 7181 of 2014

¶43

the accident had taken place on 18.06.2003 and as on the date of the accident there is no policy existing and hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. The compensation so awarded by the Court below, the owner alone is liable to pay the compensation.

¶44

Accordingly the appeal is allowed .

¶45

i) The amount deposited by the Insurance Company shall

¶46

be forthwith transmitted that the Court below and the

¶47

Insurance Company is at liberty to withdraw the same.

¶48

SD/JUDGE

¶49

KBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1 CT:PH

National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Sri H J Somashekara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Sri H J Somashekara

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

M/S Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Master Suraj

Sri Pradeep Vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance

Mr Mahesh T Vs Mr Muttu Selvam

Legal Manager Vs Anantha M

Garison Engineer Vs Sanganna

Sri Achuthan Kutty Vs the Regional Manager