Allowed

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. v. G.v.Shivaramu

Karnataka HC5 Jan 2024MFA/849/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Insurer appealed an award for injuries caused by a motorcycle, contending the vehicle KA-42-H-1040 was falsely implicated since the FIR named a different motorcycle and rider. Finding an unexplained change of vehicle number and rider between FIR and charge sheet, with eye witnesses unexamined, the court allowed the appeal and set aside the award.

What did the court decide?

Tribunal judgment and award dated 10.05.2016 set aside; deposited amount refunded to appellant-insurer; no costs.

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs G.v.Shivaramu — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:728 MFA No. 849 of 2017

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 849 OF 2017 (MV-I)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, ANIL DHIRUBHAI AMBANI GROUP, RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, REGD OFFICE: RELAINCE CENTER, 19,WALCHAND HIRACHAND MARG BALLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI – 400 001.

¶7

NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER, M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD NO.28, 5^TH FLOOR, EAST WING, CENTENARY BUILDING, M G ROAD BANGALORE – 560 045.

¶8

Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

(BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

1 G.V.SHIVARAJU S/O H V VENKATEGOWDA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

¶13

1(A) SUNANDA D/O LATE G V SHIVARAMU AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

¶14

C S SHRUTI D/O LATE G V SHIVARAMU AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:728 MFA No. 849 of 2017

¶16

¶17

W/O G R ASHWIN 3. C S YOGITHA D/O LATE G V SHIVARAMU AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS NOW R/O C/O H M BALARAMARAJU SRI VENKATADRI NILAYA OPP:TALUK OFFICE, B M ROAD KUNIGAL TOWN, TUMKUR DIST PERMANENT RESIDENTY SLN SWAMY NILAYA, 7TH CROSS, KUVEMPUNAGAR CHANNAPATNA RAMANAGARA DIST ALL ARE NOW R/O C/O H.M. BALARAMARAJU, SRI VENKATADRI NILAYA OPP:TALUK OFFICE, B M ROAD KUNIGAL TOWN, TUMKUR DIST PERMANENT RESIDENT SLN SWAMY NILAYA, 7^TH CROSS, KUVEMPUNAGAR CHANNAPATNA RAMANAGARA DIST – 521 511.

¶18

N R KANTHARAJU

¶19

S/O RAJAIAH N AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/O NO.131, NAGARAVA VILLAGE & POST, CHANNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGARA DIST – 521 511 (OWNER OF VEHICLE REG NO.KA-42-H-1040)

¶20

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M.V. MAHESHWARAPPA ADVOCATE FOR R1(A) TO (C); R2- NOTICE SERVED)

¶21

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED10.05.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.573/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MACT-XV, KUNIGAL, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.4,18,035/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶22

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:728 MFA No. 849 of 2017

¶23

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

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

The present appeal is filed by the appellant-

¶26

Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 10.05.2016 passed in MVC.No.573/2009 by the

¶27

Senior Civil Judge and MACT-XV, Kunigal, by contending that the Motor Bike No.KA-42-H-1040 was not involved in the accident, but it is falsely implicated into the case.

¶28

It is the case of the claimant that on

¶29

30.10.2008 at about 7.00 pm., the claimant was going on footpath beside NH-48 road on Bangalore Mysore Road in front of Pooja Nursing Home to go towards Bangalore and at that time, Motor Bike No.KA-42-H-1040 came from behind from Mysore side with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant, due to which, the claimant sustained injuries. Therefore, he filed the claim petition and during the pendency of the claim petition, he died. Hence, his legal heirs had come on record and prosecuted the case. Thus, the Tribunal has

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:728 MFA No. 849 of 2017

¶32

awarded compensation fixing the liability on the owner and insurer of the Motor Bike No.KA-42-H-1040.

¶33

Heard the arguments from both sides and perused the records.

¶34

Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the Motor Bike No.KA-42-H-1040 was falsely implicated into the case only for the purpose of making claim against the Insurance Company. He submitted that the brother of the claimant has given first information statement namely FIS before the police on 10.11.2008 by mentioning the offending Motor Cycle No.KA-09-ED-1170 and also specifically stated that this motor cycle number was furnished by three eye witnesses named in the FIS, but substantially in the charge sheet, the number of motor cycle was changed into KA-42-H1040. Therefore, submitted that manipulation was done by the police in collusion with the claimants and the Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence correctly resulting into

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:728 MFA No. 849 of 2017

¶36

delivering erroneous judgment. Hence, prays to allow the appeal.

¶37

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submitted that, though, initially in the complaint the number of motor cycle was mentioned as KA-09-ED-1170, but during the course of investigation, truth is revealed that involved motor cycle is KA-42-H1040 and accordingly, charge sheet is filed. Learned counsel by pointing out to the charge sheet material submitted that one of the eye witnesses by name Shivaramukumar has given statement before the police stating that the Motor Bike No.KA-42-H-1040 was involved in the accident. Therefore, there is no manipulation. The entire investigation is found to be genuine and fair one. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal. Learned counsel further submitted that during the pendency of the claim petition before the Tribunal, the injured died and hence, his legal heirs have prosecuted the claim petition and the compensation awarded is only in respect of medical bills

¶38

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:728 MFA No. 849 of 2017

¶39

and hospital charges. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal by confirming the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

¶40

In the present case, there is a delay of 10 days

¶41

in lodging the complaint. Brother of the claimant has lodged the complaint before the police. The complainant has specifically mentioned the registration number of the motorcycle as he received such information from three eye witnesses. The number of motorcycle mentioned in the complaint is “KA-09-ED-1170”, but subsequently the charge sheet is filed by mentioning the motorcycle number as “KA-42-H-1040”. Initially in the complaint the allegation is made against one Phaneendra, who has caused the accident, but subsequently, the charge sheet is filed against one Kantharaju. Therefore, there is a change of motorcycle number with driver from the stage of first information statement to charge sheet. For this, the IO

¶42

has recorded a statement of complainant and the claimant, but the complainant is not the eye witness. The

¶43

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:728 MFA No. 849 of 2017

¶44

IO has recorded the statement of one eye witness namely,

¶45

Shivakumar, who has changed the version in his restatement stating that motorcycle involved is “KA-42-H1040”. This eye witness is not examined before the Tribunal. Though in this claim proceedings eye witnesses need not be examined, but considering the mitigating factors where there is a complete change of version from motorcycle and rider in the charge sheet, then examination of these witnesses is relevant, but they are not examined. Therefore, there is a change of version in mentioning the number of motorcycle and a rider from the stage of FIR to charge sheet. One Phaneendra against whom accusation is made in the FIR, is examined and he could have deposed atleast to say that motorcycle No.KA09-ED-1170 had insurance policy and he has a driving licence, but he has not stated so. Therefore, there is a force found in the statement made by the learned counsel for the appellant that there might not be either insurance policy to the motorcycle KA-09-ED-1170 or Phaneendra might not be holding driving licence and as such, there

¶46

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:728 MFA No. 849 of 2017

¶47

might have been change of version in mentioning the number of motorcycle and a rider.

¶48

Upon considering all the circumstances and evidence on record on all its preponderance of probabilities, an impression is created that with an intention to avoid the liability, the number of motorcycle and the name of rider of motorcycle has been changed.

¶49

The brother of claimant who has lodged the

¶50

FIRs is not examined. There is no evidence before the Tribunal as to how the complainant has got information

¶51

about the motorcycle - KA-42-H-1040. Also upon considering the evidence of PW1, there is no evidence that how he has received the information regarding motorcycle - KA-42-H-1040. Therefore, there is merit found in the appeal filed by the insurance company. In this regard, the Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence correctly. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶52

¶53

NC: 2024:KHC:728 MFA No. 849 of 2017

¶54

9. For the reasons stated above, I proceed to pass the following:

¶55

ORDER

¶56

(i) Appeal is allowed .

¶57

(ii) The judgment and award dated 10.05.2016 passed by the Senior Civil

¶58

Judge and MACT-XV, Kunigal, in MVC No.573/2009, is set aside.

¶59

(iii) The amount in deposit shall be refunded to the appellant.

¶60

(iv) No order as to costs.

¶61

Sd/JUDGE

¶62

PB:Para 1 to 5 DR:Para 6 to 9 List No.: 2 Sl No.: 33

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. v. G.v.Shivaramu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. v. G.v.Shivaramu

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. a. Shanthappa Vs Smt. Prema Mary

Sri. Raju Vs Smt. Puttalakshmamma

Sri M.G. Chikkanna Vs Smt S.N. Vijayalakshmi

Sri Panidepu Akkaiah Vs the Principal

Radhakrishna Nayak Vs Mr Kitta Prabhu

Smt. Puttamma Vs M/S Chanson Cozy Cabs Pvt. Ltd.