Motor accident claim: insurer challenged Tribunal award on vehicle involvement and a later Lok Adalat compromise enhancing compensation. Court affirmed Tribunal's finding that lorry KA-25/2220 caused the accident and dismissed both the insurer's appeal and writ petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:914-DB WP No. 138873 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 100927 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO. 138873 OF 2020 (GM-RES) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100927 OF 2019
IN WP NO.138873/2020
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD, KACHERI ROAD, KATAGI BUILDING, JAMAKHANDI, REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, ENKAY COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI, BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NAGANGOUDA R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKARLAXMANKATTIMANI CHANDRASHEKARLAXMANKATTIMANIDate: 2024.01.27 11:19:27 +0530
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRASHANT S. KADADEVAR, ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NO.1, NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO. 2 SERVED)
NC: 2024:KHC-D:914-DB WP No. 138873 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 100927 of 2019
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE COMPROMISE AWARD DATED 13/07/2019 SETTLED BEFORE THE LOK ADALATH HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH AT DHARWAD IN MFA NO.103744/2018 AS PER ANNEXURE-E.
IN MFA NO.100927/2019
BETWEEN
THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD, KACHERI ROAD, KATAGI BUILDING, JAMAKHANDI-581021. REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, VIJAYAPURA, BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER.
..APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NAGANGOUDA R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE)
AND
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRASHANT S. KADADEVAR, ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NO.1, NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.2 SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS CONNECTED WITH MVC NO.542/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AND MEMBER MACT NO.XIII, AT BANAHATTI AND SET ASIDE THE AWARD DATED 31.05.2018 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
- 3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:914-DB WP No. 138873 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 100927 of 2019
THIS PETITION AND THE APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, K V ARAVIND, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Insurance Company is in appeal questioning the liability to pay compensation awarded under judgment and award dated 31.05.2018 in MVC No.542/2015 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C. and Member, MACT-XIII, Banahatti (for short, ‘Tribunal’).
2. The appellant was respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 claimant and respondent No.2 was respondent No.1 before the Tribunal. Parties to the appeal would be referred to as per their ranks before the Tribunal for convenience.
3. W.P.No.138873/2020 is preferred by the Insurance Company seeking to quash compromise award dated 13.07.2019 settled before the Lok Adalath of this Court in MFA No.103744/2018 in an appeal preferred by the
claimant. As appeal and writ petition are arising out of the common award passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.542/2015,
- 4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:914-DB WP No. 138873 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 100927 of 2019
both the matters were heard together and disposed of by this common order.
4. The claimant filed a claim petition u/sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs.14,00,000/- for injuries suffered in an accident occurred on 09.04.2015 at 10.00 p.m. at Rabakavi-Terdal PWD road, Near Hen Farmhouse involving his motorcycle bearing No.KA-48/J-8387 and lorry bearing No.KA-25/2220.
5. It is stated that the claimant while proceeding on his motorcycle bearing No.KA-48/J-8387 after completion of his duty, due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.KA-25/2220 from the opposite direction, the lorry dashed his motorcycle and due to the said accident, he sustained grievous injuries.
6. On issuance of notice, respondents appeared and filed their objections. The respondent No.1, the owner of the lorry denying the petition averments contended that the driver of the lorry was not at fault, driver was possessing
valid driving licence and vehicle is covered by insurance policy issued by the respondent No.2.
7. The respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed its written statement denying the accident, contended that accident was due to negligence of the driver of the lorry. The lorry bearing No.KA-25/2220 was not involved in the accident, for the purpose of claiming compensation, claimant in collusion with the lorry owner and police have implicated the vehicle. On the above submissions, prays for dismissal of the claim petition.
8. Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined himself as PW1, eyewitness was examined as PW2 and the doctor was examined as PW3. Claimant in support of his case, marked Exs.P1 to P24. The 2nd respondent examined its Administrative Officer as RW1 and got marked Ex.R1. The Tribunal based on the material evidence on record awarded total compensation of Rs.2,70,061/- and fastened the liability on the respondent No.2/insurer.
- 6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:914-DB WP No. 138873 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 100927 of 2019
9. Heard learned counsel Sri Naganagouda
R.Kuppelur for the appellant and learned counsel Sri Prashant S.Kadadevar for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is served and unrepresented. We have also perused the appeal papers and original records.
10. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the accident occurred on 09.04.2015. Learned counsel further submits that the claimant has filed a complaint on 10.04.2015 in Terdal Police Station stating he met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of a lorry and driver of the lorry after hitting him has left the accident place without stopping the vehicle and the complaint does not reflect or reveal the vehicle number involved in the accident. It is further contended that it is only when further statement of the victim/claimant was recorded on 13.05.2015 vehicle bearing No.KA-25/2220 has been brought on record as offending vehicle involved in the accident occurred on 09.04.2015. The Tribunal without taking into consideration the evidence placed on record regarding implication of the lorry, has proceeded to award
compensation and fastened the liability on the respondent No.2 being insurer of the offended vehicle. Thus, prays for setting aside of the judgment and award.
11. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 supported the impugned order and prays to dismiss the appeal.
12. The Tribunal on examination of the pleadings, evidence and material on record determined the compensation to be payable to the claimant at Rs.2,70,061/with interest at 6% per annum by holding that the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the lorry bearing No.KA-25/2220. The respondent No.2/insurer was directed to deposit the compensation. The Insurance Company being aggrieved against the finding of the Tribunal on the involvement of the insured vehicle is before this Court praying to set aside the judgment and award.
13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the appeal papers and the Tribunal records, the following point would arise for consideration.
- 8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:914-DB WP No. 138873 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 100927 of 2019
14. Our answer to the above point would be ‘in the affirmative’ for the following reasons.
15. It is the specific case of the claimant that the accident occurred on 09.04.2015 at 10.00 p.m. involving his motorcycle bearing No.KA-48/J-8387 and lorry bearing No.KA-25/2220. The occurrence of the accident and the injuries due to accident and the treatment is not under dispute. The claimant has filed complaint on 10.04.2015 and FIR has been registered at Terdal Police Station. The claimant was inpatient from 10.04.2015 to 29.07.2015. The police have recorded statement u/sec.161(3) Cr.P.C. from the claimant on 05.06.2015 wherein the lorry bearing number has been stated to be KA-25/2220. Similarly statement of PW2 who was eyewitness has been recorded by the police u/sec.161(3) Cr.P.C. who has stated that the accident on 09.04.2015 to the claimant was caused by the lorry bearing No.KA-25/2220.
16. The claimant in his affidavit filed as examinationin-chief has also reiterated that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.KA25/2220. The 2nd respondent/insurer has cross-examined PW1 and no contrary evidence or statement has been elicited. The PW1 has stated in his evidence the reason for not mentioning the vehicle number in the complaint. The claimant has further stated that due to accidental injuries, he was unconscious due to which the vehicle number is not mentioned in the complaint. The involvement of vehicle No.KA-25/2220 was informed by his brother on the information from the local persons. The insurer except alleging that the vehicle has been implicated as part of the accident due to the claimant being the police constable and in collusion with the insured vehicle to claim compensation illegally, has failed to place any material evidence to disprove the contentions of the claimant or to prove the case of the insurer itself.
17. PW2-eyewitness has deposed that lorry bearing No.KA-25/2220 was involved in the accident. In his cross-
examination by the insurer, no contrary evidence has been elicited. Police have filed charge sheet at Ex.P7 concluding that accident occurred on 09.04.2015 involving motorcycle and lorry due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry No.KA-25/2220. The charge sheet has been filed against the driver of the vehicle. The Insurance Company has not examined the driver of the lorry. The Motor Vehicle report at Exs.P4 and P5 is not seriously disputed by the insurer. The report also indicate the occurrence of the accident between the lorry No.KA-25/2220 and motorcycle bearing No.KA-48/J-8387. Exs.P8 and P9/discharge summary also would prove the injuries suffered by the claimant.
18. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the Tribunal justified in holding that the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of lorry bearing No.KA-25/ 2220. The Tribunal justified in determining the compensation and fastened the liability on the respondent No.2/insurer of the vehicle bearing No.KA-25/2220. We see no justifiable reasons to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. Hence, MFA No.100927/2019 is liable to be dismissed.
- 11 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:914-DB WP No. 138873 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 100927 of 2019
19. The claimant seeking enhancement of
compensation preferred MFA No.103774/2018 as ordered in MVC No.542/2015 dated 31.05.2018 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C. and MACT-XIII at Banahatti. Appeal in MFA No.103774/2018 was referred to Lok Adalath. The conciliation order dated 13.07.2019 was passed in the presence of learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and representative of the respondent/Insurance Company along with its counsel by enhancing global compensation of Rs.80,000/- in full and final settlement of the claim.
20. W.P.No.138873/2020 has been filed by the Insurance Company questioning the compromise award dated 13.07.2019 settled before the Lok Adalath of this Court in MFA No.103774/2018.
21. Sri Nagangouda R.Kuppelur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/Insurance Company submits that MFA No.100927/2019 and MFA No.103774/2018 arise out of the same judgment and award passed in MVC No.542/2018 dated 13.05.2018. MFA No.100927/2019 preferred by the Insurance Company and MFA No.103774/2018 preferred by
NC: 2024:KHC-D:914-DB WP No. 138873 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 100927 of 2019
the claimant. It is submitted both the appeals ought to have been clubbed. It is submitted that in view of the involvement of the insured vehicle is under dispute in MFA No.100927/2019, compromise in the appeal preferred by the claimant is without knowledge of the pendency of the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company. It is further submitted that the lorry was implicated in the alleged accident and charge sheet has been filed against the driver-cum-owner of the lorry in view of the claimant is a police constable in Banahatti Police Station. On the above submission, prays to allow writ petition and set aside the compromise award.
22. Sri Prashant S.Kadadevar, learned counsel appearing for the claimant/respondent No.1 justifies the compromise and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
23. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the appeal papers and record.
24. The appeal by the insurer in MFA No.100927/2019 is filed before this Court on 08.03.2019. The order of conciliation is dated 13.07.2019 in the presence
NC: 2024:KHC-D:914-DB WP No. 138873 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 100927 of 2019
of counsel for the appellant and representative of the Insurance Company. The joint memo before the High Court Legal Services Committee has been signed by the representative of the Insurance Company. Insurance Company has engaged service of the counsel in both the appeals. In the circumstances, it is not open to the Insurance Company to contend that the dispute in MFA No.103774/2018 was settled without knowledge of the pendency of the appeal filed by the Insurance Company in MFA No.100927/2019.
25. The Insurance Company has questioned the compromise award dated 13.07.2019 on the ground that insured lorry has been implicated in the alleged accident. In this common order, we have disposed of the appeal in MFA No.100927/2019 preferred by the Insurance Company by holding that accident on 09.04.2015 occurred due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.KA-25/2220. In view of our finding in MFA No.100927/2019, the grounds raised in the writ petition would not arise for consideration.
26. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no reasons to entertain the writ petition questioning the compromise award dated 13.07.2019. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
Both MFA No.100927/2019 and
W.P.No.138873/2020 are dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
CLK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the accident on 09.04.2015 involved lorry bearing No.KA-25/2220?
Whether the Insurance Company could challenge the Lok Adalath compromise award dated 13.07.2019 as settled without knowledge of its pending appeal?
4 provisions across 3 enactments
The Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Jamakhandi
Raju s/o Hanumanth Maled
Gangappa s/o Ramappa Chamakeri
S G Pandit
K V Aravind
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
