Allowed

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Puttamma

Karnataka HC1 Apr 2024MFA/1879/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Insurer appealed against a Tribunal award in a pedestrian road-accident claim, contending the claimant had given contradictory accounts of how she was injured. The High Court found the contradiction unexplained, doubted the accident as alleged, set aside the Tribunal judgment and rejected the claim petition.

What did the court decide?

Tribunal judgment dated 16.10.2012 set aside; claim petition rejected; amount in deposit refunded to Insurance Company after due identification.

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Puttamma — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:13199 MFA No. 1879 of 2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1879 OF 2013(MV-I)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, QUEENS CROSS ROAD, 1:1, KONNAGI ROAD, BANGALORE-52, REPRESENTED BY ITS THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., S.S.COMPLEX, SUBHASH SQUARE, HASSAN. REPRESENTED BY ITS THE MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, 2^ND FLOOR, SUMANGALA COMPLEX, LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBLI-580 020.

¶7

…APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SRI. M.U.POONACHA., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SMT. PUTTAMMA W/O PUTTASWAMY, AGED 45 YEARS, R/AT THATTEKERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN-573 201.

¶12

SRI. RANGASWAMY S/O RAMASHETTY, MAJOR, R/AT BHARATHI EXTENSION, NO.69, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-29.

¶13

…RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SMT. LAKSHMI., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRASANNA.V.R., ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2-HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DATED:26.03.2018)

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:13199 MFA No. 1879 of 2013

¶17

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:16.10.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.416/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, HASSAN.

¶18

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

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Sri.M.U.Poonacha., learned counsel for the appellant has appeared through video conferencing.

¶21

Smt.Lakshmi., learned counsel on behalf of

¶22

Sri.Prasanna.V.R., for respondent No.1 has appeared in person.

¶23

Notice to the respondents was ordered on 19.04.2013. A perusal of the daily order sheet depicts that vide order dated:26.03.2018 notice to respondent No.2 is held sufficient. He has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as party in person.

¶24

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status and rankings before the Tribunal.

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:13199 MFA No. 1879 of 2013

¶27

4. The brief facts are these:

¶28

In the claim petition it is stated that on the 18^th day of July 2007 at about 1:00 pm., the claimant and her husband Puttaswamy were walking near Reliance Petrol Bunk at Thattekere after alighting from a Tempo at Channarayapatna by-pass. At that time, a Tanker lorry bearing Registration No.KA-03-A-2273 came from Petrol bunk side in a rash and negligent manner and hit her. Due to the impact, she fell and sustained injuries. Contending that she is entitled for compensation, the claimant filed claim petition.

¶29

In response to the notice, the first respondent remained absent before the Tribunal and hence, he was placed ex-parte . The second respondent Insurance Company appeared through its counsel and filed written statement denying the petition averments. Among other grounds, it prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶30

Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed issues, parties led evidence and marked the documents. The Tribunal vide Judgment dated:16.10.2012 partly allowed the claim petition. The Insurance Company has assailed the

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:13199 MFA No. 1879 of 2013

¶33

Judgment of the Tribunal in this appeal on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of appeal.

¶34

Learned counsel for the respective parties have urged several contentions.

¶35

Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decision in BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. B.C.KUMAR reported in ILR 2009 KAR 2921 .

¶36

Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the appeal papers and also the records with utmost care.

¶37

The point that requires consideration is whether the Judgment of the Tribunal requires interference.

¶38

The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. Sri.M.U.Poonacha., learned counsel for the appellant in presenting his arguments vehemently contended that the claimant has played fraud on the Court by falsely involving the insurer in the accident. He argued by saying that the claimant went to the hospital with a history of Road Traffic

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:13199 MFA No. 1879 of 2013

¶41

Accident on the 18^th day of July 2007 contending that she was hit by a lorry while going on a bike. However, in the claim petition it is stated that the claimant and her husband were proceeding as pedestrian. Learned counsel therefore, submits that the claimant has made a contradictory version. To substantiate the said contention, he drew the attention of the Court to Ex.P.12 and the claim petition.

¶42

Perused the Judgment and the records of the Tribunal with utmost care. Ex.P.12 is the Case Sheet of the claimant from SSM Hospital, Hassan. In the case sheet, there is a note on the 18^th day of July 2007. It reads as under:

¶43

"H/o RTA; 18/7/07. As hit by a Lorry while

¶44

going in a bike, at Bittagondanahalli."

¶45

A perusal of the same reveals that the claimant has gone with a history of Road traffic accident contending that she was hit by a lorry while going on a bike. However, in the claim petition, she has clearly stated that she and her husband were walking and she was hit by Tanker lorry and sought compensation. If one reads the history sheet and the claim statement carefully, it can be safely concluded that the

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:13199 MFA No. 1879 of 2013

¶48

claimant has made a contradictory statement. The claimant has not approached the Tribunal with clean hands.

¶49

Smt.Lakshmi., counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant made an attempt to contend that the claimant was nervous, hence a statement was made before the doctor that she was hit by a lorry while going on a bike. However, in the claim statement the claimant has stated the true version. She argued by saying that the Insurance Company has admitted the accident and if at all there is a contradictory version, it is incumbent on the part of the Insurance Company to file a police complaint. In the absence of a police complaint, the insurance company cannot urge the ground in the appeal. The said contention is untenable. The reason is simple. There is nothing on record to show that the claimant was nervous. Absolutely, there is no explanation about the contradictory statements. Hence, it raises a doubt about the occurrence of the accident. In my view, the claimant has failed to establish that the accident occurred on the date, time and place as alleged by her in the claim petition. In other words, a false claim petition was filed in order to make an unlawful gain and to make insurance company a victim of such an act on the part of the claimant.

¶50

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:13199 MFA No. 1879 of 2013

¶51

I may venture to say that the tribunal has failed to have regard to relevant consideration and disregarded relevant matters.

¶52

For the reasons stated above, the Judgment dated:16.10.2012 passed by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl.M.A.C.T., Hassan in M.V.C.No.416/2008 is liable to be setaside. Accordingly, it is set-aside. The Claim Petition is rejected.

¶53

Resultantly, the Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed .

¶54

The amount in deposit, if any shall be refunded/ released in favor of the Insurance Company after due identification.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

TKN

¶57

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Puttamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Puttamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Priya Jogi Vs Mrs Sangitha Sanjay Sarnik

Smt. Hemavathi Vs G.A. Lakshmikantha

Sri Avinash Vemula Vs Mr.S.Suresh

Smt. Bhagyamma Vs Puttaswamygowda @ Puttegowda

Smt T Asha Vs Sri Chikkanarayana Shetty @ Chikkanarayanappa

Chanda Pasha Vs Sri Umesh