Partly allowed

Mr Syed Shafir Ur Rehaman v. United India Ins Co. Ltd.

Karnataka HC18 Mar 2024MFA/3276/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against an order dismissing a motor accident claim petition. The Tribunal had dismissed the claim relying on a wound certificate erroneously recording a right leg injury, whereas hospital records proved a left leg injury. The Court set aside the award and remanded the matter to the Tribunal to re-examine evidence and assess compensation.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; impugned judgment and award set aside; matter remanded to the Tribunal for re-assessment of compensation.

Mr Syed Shafir Ur Rehaman Vs United India Ins Co. Ltd. — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:11059 MFA No. 3276 of 2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

¶7

MFA NO. 3276 OF 2015 (MV-I)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MR SYED SHAFIR UR REHAMAN S/O LATE SYED MEER AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO. 866, 14^TH CROSS 2^ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR BANGALORE-38 PERMANENT ADDRESS: NO. 58, SONNAVADI VILLAGE MULABAGIL TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT …APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. DHARMAPAL, ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by MALA K N

¶13

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

UNITED INDIA INS. CO. LTD. C K N CHAMBER, 1^ST MAIN ROAD SHESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE-20

¶15

HAFEEZ MOHAMMAD HARSHAD S/O ABDUL NOOR AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT NO. 3, C, 1^ST CROSS NALA ROAD, SHIVAJINAGAR BANGALORE-51 …RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. P B RAJU ADV. FOR R1, VIDE ORDER DATED 6.10.2019 NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶17

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.02.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.401/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CUASES & MACT,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:11059 MFA No. 3276 of 2015

¶20

BANGALORE CITY, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

¶21

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

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

In this appeal, the petitioner has challenged

¶24

the judgment and award dated 07.02.2015 in M.V.C.No.401/2013 passed by the XVI Addl. Court of

¶25

Small Causes and M.A.C.T., Bengaluru (SCCH-14) ('the Tribunal' for short).

¶26

For the sake of convenience, the parties

¶27

shall be referred to as per their status before the Tribunal.

¶28

Brief facts of the case are, on 03.10.2012 at

¶29

about 04:45 pm, while the petitioner was riding the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-08/H-8333 at Periyar Circle of Nagavara Road, Bengaluru City, hit by another motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-06/EB-3688, injuring his left leg. After taking treatment at Mediscope Hospital, Bengaluru, he was admitted to

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:11059 MFA No. 3276 of 2015

¶32

Hosmat Hospital, Bengaluru, where he has underwent surgery with implants. After taking treatment, he approached the Tribunal for grant of compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. Claim was opposed by the Insurance Company by filing objection statement. The Tribunal after framing necessary issues, holding enquiry and taking evidence through PW-1, Exs.P1 to 25, recorded its finding by doubting the injuries sustained by the petitioner and also delay in filing the complaint, dismissed the claim petition, imposing cost of Rs.3,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this appeal on various grounds.

¶33

Heard the arguments of Sri. Dharmapal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. P.B. Raju, learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

¶34

It is the contention of learned counsel for the

¶35

petitioner that on the basis of the wound certificate, the Police have charge sheeted against the rider of

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:11059 MFA No. 3276 of 2015

¶38

the motor cycle. In the wound certificate, the Doctor who issued the same has wrongly mentioned the

¶39

injury on the 'right leg', instead of 'left leg'. Accordingly, charge sheet as per Ex.P2 was filed by the Police that the petitioner has sustained the injury to his 'right leg'. This led to the confusion in the mind of the Tribunal, resulting in dismissal of the claim. It is further contended that the Tribunal has not assessed the compensation and he sought for remand of the matter.

¶40

Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance

¶41

Company has contended that the medical records which are made available before the Tribunal could have been considered, the Tribunal has also not assessed the compensation. Under such circumstances, the Insurance Company has no objection for remand of the matter.

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:11059 MFA No. 3276 of 2015

¶44

I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments addressed on both sides and also perused the materials on record.

¶45

The material on record did point out that on 03.10.2012 at about 04:45 pm near Periyar Circle of Nagavara Road, Bengaluru City, the petitioner while riding his motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-08/H-8333 hit by another motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA06/EB-3688, injuring his left leg. He has been admitted and underwent surgery at Hosmat Hospital. Entire treatment records are made available before this Court in Exs.P20 to 25. On perusal of the same, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner has suffered injury to his left ankle and underwent surgery with implants. Ex.P1 is the F.I.R. attached with the copy of the complaint. In the complaint, there is a specific mention that the bike was hit on the left leg of the petitioner, injuring him. Ex.P9 is the wound certificate which refers the fracture of right ankle.

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:11059 MFA No. 3276 of 2015

¶48

On the basis of the same, the Police have filed charge sheet as per Ex.P2 that the petitioner has suffered fracture to his right ankle. Copy of the wound certificate under Ex.P9 is available in the hospital records, where the mistake is found from the person who issued the wound certificate that the fracture is on the 'right leg', which is contrary to the records maintained by the hospital. In the in-patient case sheet and treatment records, on multiple places, the fracture of left ankle has been mentioned and the same is in conformity with the X-ray produced on record. The Tribunal did not peruse the treatment records. It has just carried away on the basis of the charge sheet as well as wound certificate, on which there is error on the face of it.

¶49

I have perused the impugned judgment.

¶50

The Tribunal referred to the admission of the petitioner, but did not consider the treatment records. Hence, the matter requires re-

¶51

¶52

NC: 2024:KHC:11059 MFA No. 3276 of 2015

¶53

consideration; the Tribunal is required to consider the treatment records and to re-read the wound certificate as well as the charge sheet as injury to his 'left ankle' not the 'right ankle' and thereupon to proceed to assess the compensation in accordance with law. Hence, it is a case for remand. In the result, the following:

¶54

ORDER

¶55

i) The appeal is allowed ;

¶56

ii) The impugned judgment and award is set aside;

¶57

iii) The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal;

¶58

iv) Without further notice, parties to appear before the Tribunal on 15.04.2024 .

¶59

¶60

Sd/JUDGE

¶61

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

Mr Syed Shafir Ur Rehaman v. United India Ins Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Syed Shafir Ur Rehaman v. United India Ins Co. Ltd.

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

Smt Rahila Banu K Vs Sri. M.K. Muhammed Shafi Saadi

Smt Farzana Vs Sri.M.K. Muhammed Shafi Saadi

Initiating Officer Under the Pbpt Act and Vs Sri. Kempe Gowda

Sri Binu Vs Sri Wilson

Smt. Salomi Vs the Division Manager

Sri Fabby Sebastian Vs Sri Rajeev Ravindranathan