Dismissed

The Divisionl Manager v. Ashalatha

Karnataka HC9 Aug 2023MFA/793/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three miscellaneous first appeals lodged by an insurance company and a claimant were dismissed. The court Upheld the tribunal's award of Rs. 75,000 to the claimant and Rs. 5,000 to the vehicle owner, finding no error in concluding the accident resulted from rash and negligent driving.

What did the court decide?

Both the appeal of the Insurance Company and the claimant were dismissed. Any amount deposited shall be transmitted to the court below.

The Divisionl Manager Vs Ashalatha — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:28183 MFA No. 793 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 11324 of 2012 MFA No. 1007 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 793 OF 2013 (MV-I)

¶5

C/W

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 11324 OF 2012 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1007 OF 2013

¶7

IN MFA NO.793/2013

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

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

¶10

THE DIVISIONL MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, S.S. COMPLEX, SUBASH SQUARE, HASSAN - 573 201. NOW REP. BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, TP HUB, SUMANGALA COMPLEX, LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBLI - 580 020.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. H.C. VRUSHABHENDRAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

ASHALATHA,

¶15

D/O R.P. PUTTEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/O LAKSHMI RANGANATHA NILAYA, E.W.S. 10/400, JAYANAGAR, II STAGE,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:28183 MFA No. 793 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 11324 of 2012 MFA No. 1007 of 2013

¶18

NEAR MCE COLLEGE, HASSAN - 573 201.

¶19

DORESSWAMY, NO.449/1, SOUNDARYA SCHOOL, OPP. MEGANANDINI TELECOM, HAVANUR EXTENSION, BANGALORE - 560 010.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. BYRA REDDY G.S., ADVOCATE FOR SMT.KAVITHA H.C., ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 1.8.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO. 1268/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, HASSAN, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS. 75,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.

¶23

IN MFA NO.11324/2012

¶24

BETWEEN:

¶25

ASHALATHA,

¶26

D/O. R.P. BETTEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/O LAKSHMI RANGANATHA NILAYA, EWS. 10/400, JAYANAGAR II STAGE, NEAR MCE COLLEGE, HASSAN - 573 201.

¶27

…APPELLANT

¶28

(BY SRI. BYRA REDDY G.S., ADVOCATE FOR SMT.KAVITHA H.C., ADVOCATE)

¶29

AND:

¶30

DORESWAMY,

¶31

NO.449/1, SOUNDARYA SCHOOL,

¶32

¶33

NC: 2023:KHC:28183 MFA No. 793 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 11324 of 2012 MFA No. 1007 of 2013

¶34

OPP. MEGANANDINI TELECOM, HAVANUR EXTENSION, BANGALORE - 560 010.

¶35

THE DIVISIONL MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, S.S. COMPLEX, SUBASH SQUARE, HASSAN - 573 201.

¶36

NOW REP. BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, TP HUB, SUMANGALA COMPLEX, LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBLI - 580 020.

¶37

…RESPONDENTS

¶38

(BY SRI. H.C. VRUSHABHENDRAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED:05.04.2017, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶39

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:1.8.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO. 1268/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CALIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶40

IN MFA NO.1007/2013

¶41

BETWEEN:

¶42

THE DIVISIONL MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, S.S. COMPLEX, SUBASH SQUARE, HASSAN - 573 201.

¶43

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:28183 MFA No. 793 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 11324 of 2012 MFA No. 1007 of 2013

¶44

NOW REP. BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, TP HUB, SUMANGALA COMPLEX, LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBLI - 580 020.

¶45

…APPELLANT

¶46

(BY SRI. H.C. VRUSHABHENDRAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶47

AND:

¶48

R.P. BETTEGOWDA,

¶49

S/O LATE PUTTEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O LAKSHMI RANGANATHA NILAYA, E.W.S. 10/400, JAYANAGAR II STAGE, NEAR MCE COLLEGE, HASSAN - 573 201.

¶50

DORESWAMY,

¶51

NO.449/1, SOUNDARYA SCHOOL, OPP. MEGANANDINI TELECOM, HAVANUR EXTENSION, BANGALORE.

¶52

…RESPONDENTS

¶53

(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶54

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:1.8.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO. 1269/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, HASSAN, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.5,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.

¶55

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

¶56

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:28183 MFA No. 793 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 11324 of 2012 MFA No. 1007 of 2013

¶57

JUDGMENT

¶58

Aggrieved by the award passed in MVC No.1268/2009 dated 01.08.2012 by both the Insurance Company as well as the claimant have preferred the appeals. The appeal of the Insurance Company is numbered as MFA.No.793/2013 and the Claimant's appeal is numbered as MFA.No.11324/2012. The Court below had granted Global Compensation of an amount of Rs.75,000/- to the claimant and an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the owner of the vehicle towards damages. Insurance company had filed MFA No.1007/2013 against the award passed in MVC No. 1269/2009 dated 01.08.2009 where damages of Rs.5,000/was granted to the owner of the vehicle.

¶59

It is the case of the claimant that he was

¶60

proceeding on the vehicle as a pillion rider. On 31.03.2009, when the motor cycle reached near Syndicate Bank, Salagame road, Hassan, at that time, motor cycle i.e. the offending vehicle being driven by its rider in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the motor cycle and they have sustained injuries and admitted in the hospital. The vehicle was also damaged in the said accident. It is submitted that the claimant

¶61

¶62

NC: 2023:KHC:28183 MFA No. 793 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 11324 of 2012 MFA No. 1007 of 2013

¶63

had incurred huge amounts for the injuries sustained by her. The Court below on issue No.1 has held that though it is contended by the Insurance Company that as per the rider of the motor cycle, the accident had taken place at 3.10 p.m., as per the pillion rider it was at 3.30 p.m. and considering the other evidence on record, the Court had held that the accident has taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, which is insured with the respondent - Insurance Company and the owner of the vehicle as well as the Insurance Company are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

¶64

The Court below has also observed that the documents produced by the claimants and the evidence of PWs-1 and 2 clinchingly establishes that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. When it comes to the compensation, the Court below had observed that according to the claimant, she had spent an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards treatment and a sum of Rs.12,940/- towards medicines, which are not disputed by the Insurance Company. It is also the case of the claimant

¶65

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:28183 MFA No. 793 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 11324 of 2012 MFA No. 1007 of 2013

¶66

that she has sustained disability and has failed to examine the doctor. Considering the injury sustained by her, though there is no evidence of the doctor with regard to the disability, the Court has granted a Global Compensation of Rs.75,000/including the medical expenses.

¶67

The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that when there is a discrepancy in the evidence of the claimant and pillion rider, about the time of the accident as 3.10 p.m. and 3.30 p.m., the Court below ought to have disbelieved the evidence and ought not to have granted the compensation. It is submitted that the claimant had failed to examine the Doctor. Hence, the claimant is not entitled for any compensation and the Court below without considering all these aspects had granted the compensation.

¶68

Learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that there is no dispute about the fact that the accident had occurred and the Court below having given a categorical finding on that and ought to have granted the compensation. Claimant

¶69

had spent a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the treatment and other expenses towards transport, extra nourishment and

¶70

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:28183 MFA No. 793 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 11324 of 2012 MFA No. 1007 of 2013

¶71

attendant charges. He submits that the Court below considering all these aspects had granted the compensation. This Court has perused the entire material on record. The main contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is about the discrepancy with regard to the time of the accident i.e. 3.10 p.m. and 3.30 p.m. The Court below has rightly disregarded the said contention and has held that it would not go to the root of the issue or basing on that the claim petition cannot be dismissed. Except that, both documentary as well as oral evidence on behalf of the claimant supports the case of the claimant, that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal.

¶72

Then coming to the compensation, the Court below while considering the injuries sustained by the claimant, as she has not examined the doctor, has not considered the disability and other aspects and granted a Global Compensation of an amount of Rs.75,000/-. Taking into consideration Ex-P6, the Court below has rightly granted the compensation. Both the Insurance Company as well as the claimants have not made out

¶73

¶74

NC: 2023:KHC:28183 MFA No. 793 of 2013 C/W MFA No. 11324 of 2012 MFA No. 1007 of 2013

¶75

any grounds seeking interference of this Court. Accordingly, both the appeal of the Insurance Company as well as the Claimant are dismissed.

¶76

The Insurance Company filed MFA.No.1007/2013 assailing the award in MVC.No.1269/2009 dated 01.08.2012, this court finds no irregularity in the order passed by the Tribunal granting damages of Rs.5,000/- to the Vehicle. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

¶77

Any amount deposited by the Insurance Company shall be forthwith transmitted to the Court below.

¶78

SD/JUDGE

¶79

JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13 CT:SNN

The Divisionl Manager v. Ashalatha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisionl Manager v. Ashalatha

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

Sri Manju @ Manjunath Vs the Icici Lombard Gen Insurance Co. Ltd.

Bharatiraja K @ Bharatirajan Vs the Manager

Sri. B S Prashanth Vs Sri S M Muralidhar @ Murali

Sri Ganesh Bhat Vs Vasantha Shetty

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri.Manju

Sri H Y Puttaraju Vs G B Chandra Shekar