Dismissed

The Manager Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sri Rangu Naik

Karnataka HC11 Sept 2024MFA/5168/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two appeals arose from a motor accident compensation tribunal award of Rs. 6.14 lakhs. The insurer contested liability, alleging claimant negligence and a fake driving license, while the claimant sought enhancement. The High Court found sufficient evidence of the lorry driver's negligence and the insurer failed to substantiate the fake license claim. Compensation was deemed justifiable and appeals

What did the court decide?

Both appeals were dismissed without costs. The compensation awarded by the tribunal remains unchanged.

The Manager Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:37178 MFA No. 5168 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 2129 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5168 OF 2022(MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2129 OF 2024(MV-I)

¶7

IN MFA No. 5168 OF 2022:

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE MANAGER, HDFC-ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., HUBLI - 580 021. REP BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER -LEGAL, NO.25/1, 2^ND FLOOR, BUILDING NO.2, SHANKARANARAYANA BUILDING M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN (BY SRI. D. VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE) Location: HIGH COURT OF AND: KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI. RANGU NAIK, S/O. BHAJANI NAIK, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, EMPLOYEE IN SHASHI BHARATH, MACHENAHALLI, SHIVAMOGGA, R/AT. SIDDAPURA THANDA, BHADRAVATHI - 577 301.

¶13

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:37178 MFA No. 5168 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 2129 of 2024

¶14

YUSUF, S/O S.K. UMMARA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, DRIVER OF THE LORRY NO. KA-09-B-0636 RA/T ANWAR COLONY, 1^ST CROSS, BHADRAVATHI - 577 301.

¶15

SRI NAGARAJ R. S/O E.P. RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OWNER OF THE LORRY, NO.KA-09-B-0636, R/AT NEAR RMC, C.N. ROAD, BHADRAVATHI - 577 301.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNA R. MADAWAL, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R3 - SERVED, UNREPRESENTED; NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH V/O. DATED 12.03.2024)

¶18

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.02.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO. 1024/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT-11, BHADRAVATHI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 6,14,000/WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

¶19

IN MFA NO. 2129 OF 2024:

¶20

BETWEEN:

¶21

SRI. RANGU NAIK BHAJANI NAIK AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, EX-EMPLOYEE OF SHASHI BHARATH, MACHENAHALLI SHIVAMOGGA R/AT SIDDAPURA THANDA, BHADRAVATHI - 577301.

¶22

...APPELLANT

¶23

(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNA R. MADAWAL, ADVOCATE)

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:37178 MFA No. 5168 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 2129 of 2024

¶25

AND:

¶26

SRI. YUSUF S/O S.K. UMMARA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, DREIVER OF THE LORRY BEARING NO. KA-09 B-0636 R/O ANWAR COLONY, 1^ST CROSS, BHADRAVATHI - 577 301.

¶27

SRI. NAGARAJ R. S/O. E. P. RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS OWNER OF THE LORRY BEARING NO. KA-09 B-0636, R/AT NEAR RMC, C.N. ROD, BHADRAVATHI - 577 301.

¶28

THE MANAGER, HDFC - ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. HUBLI - 580 021.

¶29

...RESPONDENTS

¶30

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.02.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO. 1024/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT-11, BHADRAVATHI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶31

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:37178 MFA No. 5168 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 2129 of 2024

¶34

ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT

¶35

These two appeals arise out of the order that is rendered by Addl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-11, Bhadravathi in MVC No.1024/2018 dated 17.02.2022. While the insurer filed MFA No.5168/2022 disputing its liability to pay compensation and also raising a contention that the compensation granted is excessive and exorbitant, the claimant filed MFA No.2129/2024 seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶36

Heard Sri.D.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer in MFA No.5168/2022 who is representing the same party in the connected appeal, where it is arrayed as respondent No.3. Also heard Sri.Mallikarjuna.R.Madawal, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant in MFA No.2129/2024 who is appearing for the same party in the connected appeal, where he is arrayed as respondent No.1.

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:37178 MFA No. 5168 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 2129 of 2024

¶38

For the sake of convenience of discussion

¶39

parties to the appeal would be herein after be referred to as the claimant and the insurer.

¶40

The matrix of the case as projected by the claimant before the Tribunal is that on 30.04.2018 while he was proceeding on his bike bearing registration No.KA14/EP 4349 as a rider from Siddapura Thanda to the industrial area Machenahalli and when he reached near Nyoteck factory, a lorry bearing registration No.KA-09/B0636 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from opposite direction and hit his vehicle due to which he sustained grievous injuries.

¶41

Making his submission, Sri.D.Vijaya Kumar for the insurer submits that the driver of the lorry was driving the lorry carefully and consciously, but the claimant who was riding the motor cycle came from opposite direction at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the lorry and thus he sustained injuries. There is neither rashness nor negligence on the part of the

¶42

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:37178 MFA No. 5168 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 2129 of 2024

¶43

driver of the lorry. Though such a contention was raised and established, the Tribunal erroneously fixed the entire negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and ultimately ordered the insurer to pay compensation. Learned counsel further submits that a false complaint was given against the driver of the lorry only to extract compensation.

¶44

Vehemently opposing the submission thus made, Sri.Mallikarjuna.R.Madawal for claimant submits that the claimant by producing cogent and convincing evidence established that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. Learned counsel states that basing on the complaint given, a case was registered against the driver of the lorry and after investigation charge sheet was laid against the said driver. The driver of the lorry did not dispute the contents

¶45

of the charge sheet. The insurer miserably failed to establish his version that claimant was at fault. Therefore,

¶46

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:37178 MFA No. 5168 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 2129 of 2024

¶47

the Tribunal rightly fastened the liability against the insurer.

¶48

It is not in dispute that basing on the contents of the complaint given, the case was registered, investigated into and charge sheet was laid against the driver of the lorry. Though the driver of the lorry and the owner of the lorry were made parties to the claim petition, for the reasons best known they failed to contest the matter. Even the insurer failed to produce any convincing material to show that the claimant was negligent or that he contributed for the accident to occur. Thus this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal did not err in concluding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry.

¶49

The second point urged and highlighted by Sri.D.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the insurer is with regard to the driving license of the driver of the lorry. Learned counsel states that the driver of the lorry produced a fake driving license and indeed the said driver

¶50

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:37178 MFA No. 5168 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 2129 of 2024

¶51

was not holding valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle by the date of accident. Learned counsel contends that by producing Ex.R2, the insurer has clearly established that the driving license mentioned in the charge sheet does not pertain to the driver of the lorry but without observing the said fact, the Tribunal failed to exonerate the insurer from liability.

¶52

The submission that is made by

¶53

Sri.Mallikarjuna.R.Madawal for claimant on the other hand is that production of the documents itself is not sufficient and the insurer is at liability to establish the genuineness of Ex.R2. However, he did not choose to examine the author of Ex.R2. Thus the Tribunal has rightly declined to give any evidentiary value to Ex.R2.

¶54

The version of the insurer is that the driver of

¶55

the lorry was not holding valid and effective driving license and he produced a false and fabricated copy of driving license before the police. The license number mentioned in the police records does not tally with the records

¶56

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:37178 MFA No. 5168 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 2129 of 2024

¶57

maintained by RTO, Hassan. Learned counsel Sri.D.Vijaya Kumar contends that the driving license produced by the driver of the lorry before police indeed belongs to one Sri.Prasanna Kumar. But by fabricating the document, the driver of the lorry projected a false plea that he hold valid driving license. The insurer who took a plea that the driving license produced by the driver of the lorry before the police authorities is fake is under obligation to establish the said fact. However, except producing Ex.R2 extract of driving license, the insurer did not take any steps or pain to establish its genuineness by examining either the author of the said document or any of the officials who can speak about the genuineness of the said document. Without doing so, the insurer cannot seek for exoneration of liability basing on the ground that the driving license produced is fake. In the light of absence of sufficient proof regarding the plea taken, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability against the insurance company.

¶58

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:37178 MFA No. 5168 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 2129 of 2024

¶59

Coming to the quantum of compensation that is

¶60

awarded, the Tribunal through the impugned order awarded a sum of Rs.6,14,000/- as compensation divided under following heads:

¶61

Sl. No	Description	Amount
1	Towards pain and sufferings	Rs.40,000
2	Future medical expenses	Rs.50,000
3	Medical expenses	Rs.2,43,764.44
4	Towards conveyance, attendant charges, nourishing food, travelling and incidental expenses	Rs.10,000
5	Discomfort and amenities	Rs.5,000
6	Loss of income during laid down period	Rs.18,270
7	Permanent disability	Rs.2,46,645
	Total	Rs.6,13,679.44
	Rounded off	RS.6,14,000

¶62

Undisputedly the claimant sustained

¶63

comminuted fracture of left fronto temporal bone apart

¶64

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:37178 MFA No. 5168 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 2129 of 2024

¶65

from injuries to right hand and right leg. Subjecting the evidence of Pw.1 and Pw.2, Ex.P5 to Ex.P54 to scrutiny, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that the disability in respect of whole body is required to be taken as 8%. The said observation is justifiable. Also having regard to the nature of injuries sustained, this Court is of the view that the compensation granted under all heads is justifiable. This Court does not find any grounds either to enhance the compensation as sought for by the claimant or to reduce the same as requested by the insurer. Therefore, the discussion is concluded holding that both the appeals lack merits.

¶66

Resultantly, both the appeals stands dismissed without costs.

¶67

Sd/(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE

¶68

NS CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

The Manager Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sri Rangu Naik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Manager Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sri Rangu Naik

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. Rekha Vs Ramesha

Smt Waheeda Begum Vs the Manager

Krishnaprasad Vs Shekar

Mr. Chandrahasa Vs Mr. Avinash v Poojary

Sri.Nagendra C.T. Vs Sri.Yogesh.a

Smt Mangalagowramma @ Mangalagowri Vs Sri Rajegowda