Allowed

Sri Fabby Sebastian v. Sri Rajeev Ravindranathan

Karnataka HC18 Mar 2024MFA/5015/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged the dismissal of a motor accident compensation claim. The High Court held that the Tribunal failed to appreciate evidence due to discrepancies in hospital admission records. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the dismissal, and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for further proceedings under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC.

What did the court decide?

I.A.No.2/2016 allowed; appeal allowed; impugned judgment set aside; matter remanded to Tribunal for evidence and decision.

Sri Fabby Sebastian Vs Sri Rajeev Ravindranathan — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:11085 MFA No. 5015 of 2016

¶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. 5015 OF 2016 (MV-I)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI FABBY SEBASTIAN S/O P.K.SEBASTIAN AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/AT NO.257, K.KAMARAJ ROAD BENGALURU-560 042 …APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR PATIL, ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI RAJEEV RAVINDRANATHAN S/O P.RAVINDRANATHAN MAJOR IN AGE, R/AT NO.405 R & S WOODSIDE APARTMENTS NO.7, HENNUR MAIN ROAD NEXT TO HENNUR POLICE STATION BENGALURU-560 003

¶13

Digitally signed by MALA K N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

M/S. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD. GROUND FLOOR NO.31 TBR TOWER, 1^ST CROSS NEW MISSION ROAD NEAR BENGALURU STOCK EXCHANGE BENGALURU-560 027

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI.A.C.BALAJI, ADV. FOR R1; SRI. P. B. RAJU, ADV. FOR R2)

¶17

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.02.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.2591/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE 1^ST ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & 27^TH ACMM,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:11085 MFA No. 5015 of 2016

¶20

BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

¶21

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

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

In this appeal, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and award dated 09.02.2016 in M.V.C.No.2591/2014 passed by the I Addl. Court of Small Causes and M.A.C.T., Bangalore (SCCH-11) ('the Tribunal' for short).

¶24

For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their status before the Tribunal.

¶25

Brief facts of the case are, 28.02.2012 at about 09:30 am, while the petitioner was riding his Honda Activa bearing Reg.No.KA-01/EN-2198 on Kaveri road at High Street junction, Bengaluru hit by a car bearing Reg.No.KA-03/MJ-5320 injuring him. He was treated at Santhosh Hospital, then admitted to Hosmat Hospital, Bengaluru. After taking treatment, he approached the Tribunal for grant of compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. Claim was opposed

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:11085 MFA No. 5015 of 2016

¶28

by both the respondents. The Tribunal after holding enquiry and taking the evidence, by impugned judgment, dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this appeal on various grounds.

¶29

Heard the arguments of Sri. Chandrashekar Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. A.C. Balaraj, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri. P.B. Raju, learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

¶30

It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, soon after the accident, was admitted to Santhosh Hospital; after treatment, he was then shifted to Hosmat Hospital. In Santhosh Hospital, history of the accident was furnished properly, but at the time of giving evidence before the Tribunal, the said aspect was not noticed by the petitioner. For this reason, the Tribunal placed reliance on Ex.R7/M.L.C. register extract of Hosmat

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:11085 MFA No. 5015 of 2016

¶33

Hospital and recorded that there is a discrepancy in the very involvement of the vehicles and dismissed the claim petition. It is further contended that no compensation was assessed by the Tribunal. Learned counsel also urged that I.A.No.2/2016 is filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of C.P.C. along with admission extract of Santhosh Hospital to explain the history of the accident. He sought for considering the application, an opportunity to the petitioner to explain the discrepancy before the Tribunal and sought for remand.

¶34

Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has contended that it is the duty of the petitioner to establish the involvement of the vehicle in the accident to claim the compensation; history furnished to the Hosmat Hospital only refers to two-wheeler; it has no reference to the involvement of the car in question. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner has not produced any document pertains to Santhosh Hospital to explain the accident; the

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:11085 MFA No. 5015 of 2016

¶37

Tribunal has rightly observed and ordered for dismissal of the claim petition. He further submits that I.A.No.2/2016 along with the document now placed before this Court is concocted one; if such a document was in existence, nothing prevented for the petitioner to place the same before the Tribunal; in order to make-up the order of dismissal, such a document came into existence and it shall not be encouraged.

¶38

Learned counsel for the owner of the car

¶39

stood in support of the arguments of the Insurance Company.

¶40

I have given my anxious consideration to the

¶41

arguments addressed on both sides and also perused the materials on record.

¶42

The points that arise for consideration are:

¶43

(i) Whether the petitioner has explained the accident?

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:11085 MFA No. 5015 of 2016

¶46

(ii) Whether the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is erroneous and calls for interference?

¶47

Reg. Point No.(i):

¶48

It is the specific case of the petitioner that while he was riding the scooter, car hit against him at High Street Junction and injured him. Same is the evidence placed before the Tribunal. On behalf of the Insurance Company, accident register extract of Hosmat Hospital is produced as Ex.R7. On perusal of the same, one can make out that the petitioner was hit by a two-wheeler. Now, along with I.A.No.2/2016, the petitioner has produced the admission extract issued by Santhosh Hospital, where history of the accident has clear reference as to the involvement of the two-wheeler and the car. It is pertinent to note that in Ex.P5/spot sketch, the Investigating Officer has specifically mentioned the accident is involving 2 vehicles i.e., KA-01/EN-2198 and KA-03/MJ-5320. Thus, the evidence on record establishes accident was

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:11085 MFA No. 5015 of 2016

¶51

due to involvement of 2 vehicles. But, before the Tribunal, insufficient evidence is placed by the petitioner which created doubt in the mind of the Tribunal. Hence, the matter requires re-consideration by the Tribunal giving opportunity to the petitioner to place additional evidence to explain the accident properly. Accordingly, point No.(i) is answered.

¶52

Reg. Point No.(ii):

¶53

On perusal of the impugned judgment, the Tribunal mainly relied upon Ex.R7. When the Tribunal is lacking evidence to appreciate the claim of the petitioner, I do not found fault with the Tribunal in the impugned judgment. Since the petitioner is seeking an opportunity to establish the accident, it is proper to provide him an opportunity. Hence, without touching the merits of the case, it is a fit case for allowing the request of the petitioner and I.A.No.2/2016. Hence, the following:

¶54

¶55

NC: 2024:KHC:11085 MFA No. 5015 of 2016

¶56

ORDER

¶57

i) I.A.No.2/2016 filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of C.P.C. by the petitioner is allowed ;

¶58

ii) The appeal is allowed ;

¶59

iii) Impugned judgment and award is set aside;

¶60

iv) The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal with a direction to give opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence and then to decide the claim in accordance with law;

¶61

v) Office to transmit the records submitted by the petitioner along with I.A.No.2/2016 and Trial Court records to the Tribunal;

¶62

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

¶63

Sd/JUDGE

¶64

PA CT:HS, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

Sri Fabby Sebastian v. Sri Rajeev Ravindranathan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Fabby Sebastian v. Sri Rajeev Ravindranathan

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

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

Smt. Salomi Vs the Division Manager