Dismissed

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Sri Chowdappa

Karnataka HC4 Jul 2023MFA/9196/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal by Oriental Insurance Company against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that a four-wheeler was involved in the accident, relying on a wound certificate and police charge sheet over a contradictory discharge summary, thus confirming the compensation award.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed; the judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 03.02.2012 are confirmed.

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Sri… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:22925 MFA No. 9196 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9196 OF 2012 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.6, 80 FEET ROAD, 7TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, WEST OF BTS KALYANA MANTAP, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 560 035, REPRESENTED BY ITS THE ASST. MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX, NO.44/45, RESIDENCY ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 025.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

(BY SRI. M U POONACHA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SRI. CHOWDAPPA, S/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA, AGED 55 YEARS, R/AT NEAR GOWRI SHANKAR, TALKIES ROAD, PARVATHINAGAR, ATTIBELE VILLAGE AND HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT.

¶14

SMT. E. RATHNAMMA, W/O SRI. B.N. SONNAPPA REDDY,

¶15

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:22925 MFA No. 9196 of 2012

¶16

MAJOR, R/AT NO.25, 1ST CROSS, PATEL BALAPPA LAYOUT, K.M. ROAD, ADUGODI, BANGALORE - 560 036.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. S K VENKATACHALAPATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. K V SATISH, ADVOCATE FOR R2;)

¶19

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 3.2.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.3611/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE 10TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.3,43,720/- WITH INTEREST @ 8% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION.

¶20

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

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The appeal is filed by the appellant-insurance

¶23

company challenging the judgment and award dated 03.02.2012 passed in MVC No.3611/2009 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore.

¶24

2. Brief facts of the case are that:

¶25

On 10.09.2007 at about 9.30 a.m., the petitioner and

¶26

his friend Govindappa went to Jujavadi to buy cows and

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:22925 MFA No. 9196 of 2012

¶28

both of them were walking on Service Road NH-7 Bangalore-Hosur Main Road. When they reached check post of Attibele in front of Narmada Bar by that time, the driver of the Tata Sumo bearing registration No.KA-01-03045 came with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner from back side.

¶29

By that time the petitioner fell down and sustained fracture over left leg, head and sustained bleeding injuries to all over the body. Therefore, the petitioner filed claim petition seeking compensation.

¶30

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

¶31

appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent-

¶32

Insurance Company and perused the records.

¶33

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted

¶34

that the vehicle Tata Sumo is not involved in the accident but two wheeler has dashed the claimant. For the best reasons known to the complainant, a false complaint is lodged stating that the Tata Sumo has dashed the claimant. But the discharge summary of the hospital

¶35

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:22925 MFA No. 9196 of 2012

¶36

shows that the claimant was hit by two wheeler. Therefore, it is submitted that the Tata Sumo vehicle is not involved in the accident. Hence, he prays to set aside the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal by allowing the appeal.

¶37

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent-insurance company justified the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶38

In the present case, the accident was caused on 10.09.2007 at morning 9.30 a.m. and the complaint was lodged before the police on 12.09.2007 at afternoon 1.00 p.m. There may be little delay in lodging the complaint before the police. But the determined thing is that priority is given to medical treatment rather than filing of the complaint. Under these circumstances, there may be some delay in lodging the complaint and this always could not create a doubt regarding the claim petition.

¶39

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:22925 MFA No. 9196 of 2012

¶40

7. Though in the discharge summary i.e. Ex.R5, it

¶41

is stated regarding the history of accident where the claimant was hit by two wheeler. But the claimant has stated that Tata Sumo vehicle had hit him. Considering this discrepancy in the nature of vehicle, another document i.e. wound certificate is perused and the same is marked as Ex.P5., wherein it is mentioned that the claimant was hit by four wheeler. The wound certificate and discharge summary are issued from the same hospital. The wound certificate is based on the case sheet maintained by the hospital. Just because in the discharge summary the nature of vehicle is mentioned as two wheeler, then other documents can be looked into. The claimant had stated that he was hit by Tata Sumo vehicle. The complaint is lodged to that effect and the charge sheet is filed against the driver of the said vehicle. The statutory investigation is having its own sanctity and significance. Moreover, in the wound certificate, it is mentioned that the claimant was hit by four wheeler. Therefore, the claimant's case is corroborated by medical documents

¶42

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:22925 MFA No. 9196 of 2012

¶43

such as wound certificate. Just because in the discharge summary it is stated that the claimant was hit by two wheeler, that cannot take away the other evidence on record while appreciating the entire evidence on record on its preponderance of probability. Therefore, the Tribunal is correct in holding that the Tata Sumo vehicle is involved in accident and driver of the said vehicle is charge sheeted and the compensation is awarded accordingly. The said finding of the Tribunal requires no interference by this Court. Hence, the appeal filed by the appellant-insurance company is liable to be dismissed.

¶44

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

i. The appeal is dismissed .

¶47

ii. The judgment and award dated 03.02.2012 passed in MVC No.3611/2009 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore is hereby confirmed.

¶48

¶49

NC: 2023:KHC:22925 MFA No. 9196 of 2012

¶50

iii. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal.

¶51

iv. Costs made easy.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

SSD

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Sri Chowdappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Sri Chowdappa

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

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs Sri P Nanjireddy

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri Ramachandra Gowda

Savitha Vs B Parashuram Bhat

The Divisional Manager Vs Venkateshan Karanan

Padmavathi Vs a Yogananda Reddy

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Siddaraju