Allowed

The Manager Uniged India Insu.Co.Ltd., v. Sharanappa Bhimappa Jogi

Karnataka HC8 Feb 2024MFA/20048/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Insurer appealed against MACT award of Rs.94,200 for injuries allegedly caused by a TT unit. The court found hospital case sheet recorded that the right leg was crushed between bullock cart body and wheel; no road traffic accident was mentioned in medical records and a private complaint was filed four months after the incident. Holding the tribunal erred in fastening liability on the insurer, the

What did the court decide?

Liability on the insurer set aside while maintaining quantum; claimant entitled to compensation from TT owner; deposit returned to insurer.

The Manager Uniged India Insu.Co.Ltd., Vs Sharanappa Bhimappa Jogi — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:2882 MFA No. 20048 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 20048 OF 2012 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD, MELLIGERI COMPLEX, KALADAGI ROAD, BAGALKOT, NOW REP. BY ITS SR. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, S. M. DHARMANANDARAO, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, "SEETA SMRUTI", MARUTI GALLI, BELGAUM.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. RAVINDRA R. MANE, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI. SHARANAPPA BHIMAPPA JOGI, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: CLEANER, AGRICULTURE, COOLIE GARAGE, NOW NILL, R/O. SHIRAGUPPI, TAL: BAGALKOT, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶13

BHARATHI H M

¶14

Digitally signed by BHARATHI H M Date: 2024.02.21 11:57:37 +0530

¶15

SRI. BHIMAPPA S/O. YALLAPPA JOGI, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL, LANDLORD AND OWNER OF TT, R/O. SHIRAGUPPI, TAL: BAGALKOT, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P. N. HOSAMANE, ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NO.1, NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.2 SERVED)

¶17

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS HEAR THE PARTIES AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD OF RS.94,200/- WITH 6% INTEREST PER ANNUM PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRI. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, BAGALKOT IN MVC NO.554/2008 DATED 25/07/2011 WITH COSTS AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC-D:2882 MFA No. 20048 of 2012

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Heard Sri.Ravindra R. Mane, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.P.N.Hosamane, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶23

Insurance Company is in appeal challenging the validity of the judgment and award passed in MVC No.554/2008 on the file of the Member M.A.C.T. No.1, Bagalkot dated 25.07.2011.

¶24

Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶25

Claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act for the alleged road traffic accidental injuries that occurred on 30.08.2007 at 6.00 pm on account of negligent riding of the driver of TT Unit bearing No.KA-29/T-8404-05.

¶26

The claim petition was resisted by filing detailed written statement by the Insurance Company including false implication of the TT unit in the incident.

¶27

Claim petition on contest, came to be allowed in a sum of Rs.94,200/- and fastened the liability on the Insurance Company as under:

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC-D:2882 MFA No. 20048 of 2012

¶30

		Amount
1.	Pain and sufferings	10,000/-
2.	Medical expenses	44,000/-
3.	Loss of future income	32,400/-
4.	Loss of amenities, nutrition,	7,200/-
	diet and attendant charges etc.
TOT	AL	94,200/-

¶31

Being aggrieved by the same, Insurance Company is

¶32

in appeal.

¶33

Sri.Ravindra R. Mane, Learned Counsel for the appellant, reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum contended that there is no involvement of the TT unit in the incident and as an afterthought, after four months of the incident, a private complaint came to be filed and said private complaint was converted into a criminal case and driver of the TT unit was charge sheeted and medical records would go to show that the injury has been caused to the claimant on the right leg of the injured having struck in between the cart wheel of the bullock cart.

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2882 MFA No. 20048 of 2012

¶35

Per contra, Sri.P.N.Hosamane, learned counsel contended that claimant is not the person, who gave the history and it is his relative, who gave the history. Therefore, same cannot be blown out of the proportion while accepting the contentions of the Insurance Company and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶36

In view of the rival contentions of the parties, this Court perused the material on record, meticulously.

¶37

On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the claimant sustained injury but whether at all the said injury is by virtue of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the TT unit as aforesaid, is the question that is to be looked into.

¶38

In this regard Ex.R.1 is the case sheet of the Hospital that has been produced by the Insurance Company. In the case sheet while narrating the history, there is a clear mention that right leg of the claimant got crashed because it got struck in between the body of the cart and wheel of the cart.

¶39

If the claimant is not the person, who gave the history, nothing prevented the claimant to examine the person,

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2882 MFA No. 20048 of 2012

¶41

who gave the history wherein, he could have deposed before

¶42

the Court that in the anxiety he has given a wrong history.

¶43

No such attempt is made by the claimant. But as an afterthought, rightly contended by learned counsel for the appellant, a private complaint came to be filed, four months later. Based on the said private complaint, police filed charge sheet against driver of the TT unit.

¶44

Nowhere in the medical records, till the discharge, the claimant has chosen to intimate the doctor that he has actually sustained injury in a road traffic accident. Wound certificate also does not indicate that the injuries are on account of road traffic accident.

¶45

Under such circumstances, fastening the liability on the Insurance Company is incorrect.

¶46

Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that Tribunal has misdirected itself in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company only on the basis of police records which needs interference.

¶47

Hence following:

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC-D:2882 MFA No. 20048 of 2012

¶50

ORDER

¶51

(i) Appeal is allowed .

¶52

(ii) While maintaining the quantum of compensation, liability fastened on the appellant/Insurance Company is hereby set aside.

¶53

(iii) The claimant is entitled to adjudged quantum of compensation from the owner of the TT unit.

¶54

(iv) Amount in deposit is ordered to be returned to the Insurance Company.

¶55

(v) No order as to cost.

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

KAV

¶58

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 45

The Manager Uniged India Insu.Co.Ltd., v. Sharanappa Bhimappa Jogi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Manager Uniged India Insu.Co.Ltd., v. Sharanappa Bhimappa Jogi

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

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Shri Chidanand S/O Shankar Nemagoudar

Mariyappa S/O Basappa Tidi Vs Madhu @ Mudukappa S/O Basappa

The Manager, Vs Smt.Sujathamma @ C. Sujatha

Ramzansab S/O Hazaresab Vatnal Vs K P Chikkarangaiah S/O Puttaswamaiah

The Branch Manager Vs Smt.Shakunthalamma W/O Late Murtheppa

The Managing Director Vs Shri.Prabhakar Annu Pujari