Allowed

The Manager v. Yadhavamurthy

Karnataka HC15 Mar 2024MFA/2047/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the insurer's appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The court set aside the liability imposed on the insurer due to insertion of vehicle numbers in medical and accident documents and police delay, directing the vehicle owner to satisfy the award instead.

What did the court decide?

The judgment of the MACT concerning liability on the insurer was set aside; the Insurance Company is exonerated; the vehicle owner is directed to satisfy the award; amount deposited to be refunded to

The Manager Vs Yadhavamurthy — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:10843 MFA No. 2047 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2047 OF 2013 (MV)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 1^ST FLOOR, NO.19/1, 3^RD CROSS, CHIKKANNA GARDENS, SHANKARMAT COMPOUND, CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE - 560 004. BY ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.144, NO.44/45, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX, RESIDENCY CROSS ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 023, BY ITS MANAGER.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI.O.MAHESH., ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AND:

¶14

YADHAVAMURTHY

¶15

AGED 35 YEARS, S/O MUNIYAPPA, R/A NO.256, JIGANI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE DIST - 562 106.

¶16

SMT.T.REKHA MAJOR, W/O NOT DISCLOSED, NO.17, 1^ST FLOOR, 5^TH CROSS, J.P.NAGAR, III PHASE, BANGALORE - 560 078.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:10843 MFA No. 2047 of 2013

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.M.BABU., ADVOCATE FOR R1 [ABSENT]; NOTICE TO R2-HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DATED: 19.03.2015)

¶21

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:16.11.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.611/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE.

¶22

¶23

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

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Sri.O.Mahesh., learned counsel for the appellant has appeared through video conferencing.

¶26

There is no representation on behalf of respondent No.1, either personally or through video conferencing.

¶27

As could be seen from the daily order sheet, the appeal was listed on 14.03.2024, on that day, there was no representation on behalf of respondent No.1. Hence, the appeal was ordered to be listed on 15.03.2024.

¶28

The appeal is listed today. As already noted above, when the matter is called there is no representation on behalf of

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:10843 MFA No. 2047 of 2013

¶31

respondent No.1, either personally or through video conferencing. Hence, this Court proceeds to pass orders on the merits of the case.

¶32

Emergent notice to the respondents was ordered on 01.03.2013. A perusal of daily order sheet depicts that vide order dated:19.03.2015 notice to respondent No.2 is held sufficient. Respondent No.2 has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as party in person.

¶33

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

¶34

It is the case of the claimant that on the 25^th day of May 2004, at about 11:30 pm., he was riding his Bajaj Scooter bearing Registration No.KA-03-A-6230 on Jigani Main Road, carefully and cautiously on the left side of the road, a Matador Van bearing Registration No.KA-05-A-324 came in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly took turn without given any horn and hit against his scooter. Due to the impact, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Leela Nursing Home at Jigani, where first aid was given and thereafter, he was shifted to Bangalore Hospital for

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:10843 MFA No. 2047 of 2013

¶36

further treatment. Later on he was shifted to Bowring Hospital and lastly, he was readmitted to Veena Nursing Home at Jigani and took treatment as an in-patient for ten days. Contending that he is entitled for compensation, the claimant filed claim petition.

¶37

In response to notice, the first respondent remained absent before the Tribunal and hence, she was placed ex-parte . The second respondent Insurance Company appeared through its counsel and filed written statement denying the petition averments. It contended that the offending vehicle was not at all involved in the accident and it was also contended that the owner of the vehicle colluding with the claimant created false documents. Among other grounds. it prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶38

Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed issues, parties led evidence and marked the documents. The Tribunal vide Judgment dated:16.11.2012 partly allowed the claim petition. The Insurance Company has assailed the Judgment in this appeal on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of appeal.

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:10843 MFA No. 2047 of 2013

¶40

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Judgment of the Tribunal is contrary to law and material on record.

¶41

Next, he submits that the Tribunal has grossly erred in holding that the vehicle insured by the Company was involved in the alleged accident even after remand.

¶42

A further submission is made that the Tribunal even after remand, failed to notice that the alleged accident was occurred on 25.05.2004 and FIR came to be lodged eleven days after the date of alleged accident.

¶43

Learned counsel vehemently contended that there is an insertion of vehicle numbers in Ex.R.2 Accident register.

¶44

Lastly, he submits that viewed from any angle, the Judgment of the Tribunal is untenable. Counsel therefore, submits that the appeal may be allowed.

¶45

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

¶46

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:10843 MFA No. 2047 of 2013

¶47

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

¶48

The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. The alleged accident appears to have occurred on the 25^th day of May 2004. However, the claimant made a complaint on the 05^th day of June 2004. There is a delay of eleven days in making the complaint.

¶49

Ex.R.2 is the Accident Register Extract. A perusal of the same reveals that there is an insertion of vehicle numbers. Initially the same was kept blank, later on there is an insertion. Hence, the contention of the Insurance company that there is an insertion of vehicle number in page No.13 of the Accident Register Extract is accepted.

¶50

It is pivotal to note that a doctor of Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital was examined as PW2. After remand, he has admitted in the cross examination that in Ex.P.2 Wound Certificate there is an INSERTION. He has deposed that the Junior doctor has failed to note the vehicle numbers and on the next day, after verifying he has inserted the vehicle numbers.

¶51

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:10843 MFA No. 2047 of 2013

¶52

The injured was shuffling from one hospital to other. However, the matter was not reported to the jurisdictional police. As already noted above, there is a delay in making a complaint and the material evidence on record. This aspect of the matter has been overlooked by the Tribunal.

¶53

Furthermore, the material evidence on record, in particular Ex.P.2 Wound Certificate and Ex.R.2 Accident Register Extract and also the evidence of Doctor raises a doubt of involvement of the offending vehicle which was insured with the Insurance Company. I may venture to say that the Tribunal even after a remand, has failed to have regard to relevant consideration and disregarded relevant matters and has erroneously fastened the liability on the insurance Company, which in my opinion is unsustainable in law.

¶54

For the reasons stated above, the Judgment dated:16.11.2012 passed by the MACT, Bangalore in MVC No.611/2005 in so far as fastening liability on the Insurance company is concerned is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, it is set-aside. The Insurance Company is exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation.

¶55

¶56

NC: 2024:KHC:10843 MFA No. 2047 of 2013

¶57

In view of exoneration of liability on the Insurance Company, the owner of the offending vehicle is directed to satisfy the award of the Tribunal.

¶58

Resultantly, the Miscellaneous First Appeal is

¶59

allowed .

¶60

The Registry concerned is directed to transmit the amount in deposit to the Tribunal forthwith for refund of the same to the Insurance Company.

¶61

Sd/JUDGE

¶62

TKN

¶63

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

The Manager v. Yadhavamurthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Manager v. Yadhavamurthy

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

Sri S Manjunath Vs Sri M Ramakrishnappa

Chaithra Vs Sri. M.Kumar

Appaiah Vs Swami Jogi

S C Shivakumar Vs the Chief Traffic Manager

Sri B N Nagesh Vs Sri Ravikumara

Sri Puttalingaiah Vs Sri Rangaswamy R