New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri T Mudduraj

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:19872 MFA No. 102 of 2014

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102 OF 2014 (MV-D)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, "VIJAYASHRI", OPP:NANJUNDESHWARA PETROL BUNK, NEAR UNION PARK, DAVANGERE ROAD, CHITRADURGA, REPRESENTING BY ITS MANAGER NEW INDIA ASS. CO. LTD., M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI.R.JAIPRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B

¶12

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

AND:

¶14

SRI. T. MUDDURAJ, S/O THIPPEERAPPA, HOSAKALLAHALLI VILLAGE, DISTRICT & TALUK, CHITRADURGA – 577 501.

¶15

OWNER OF THE TRACTOR-TRAILER BEARING NO.KA-16-T-3963-3964

¶16

SRI. BYRASIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:19872 MFA No. 102 of 2014

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

SMT.VANAJAKSHAMMA,

¶20

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

¶21

SRI B.SHIVAMURTHY @ SHIVAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,

¶22

RESPONDENT Nos.2 TO 4 ARE R/AT MATTIKALLAHALLI VILLAGE,

¶23

DISTRICT AND TALUK CHITRADURGA – 577 501.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI.MANJUNATH T.B., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI.SPOORTHY HEGDE N., ADVOCATE FOR C/R2 to R4)

¶26

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.09.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.778/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE & ADDITIONAL MACT, CHITRADURGA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.5,70,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL PAYMENT.

¶27

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶30

This appeal is by the insurer challenging the judgment and award dated 19.09.2013 passed in MVC No.778/2010 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge and Additional MACT, Chitradurga, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short).

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:19872 MFA No. 102 of 2014

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

For the sake of convenience, the parties are

¶34

referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

¶35

Brief facts of the case are that on 19.02.2010 at about 7.00 a.m., the deceased-Siddesh @ B. Siddeshi, was joining a trailer to the tractor bearing Reg.No.KA-16/T-39633964. At that time, the tractor driver in a negligent manner reversed the vehicle, as a result of which, the hook of the trailer struck his private parts, leading to death of Siddesh. While undergoing treatment at Basaveshwara Hospital, Chitradurga, he succumbed to the injuries.

¶36

It is further case of the claimant that claimant Nos.1 and 2 are his parents and claimant No.3 is the younger brother of deceased. The claimants also contended that the deceased was aged about 20 years at the time of accident and that he was an agriculturist and earning Rs.15,000/- p.m. The claimants were dependent upon the earnings of the deceased. With these reasons, they prayed to award compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

¶37

Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2

¶38

is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Respondent No.1 in his

¶39

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:19872 MFA No. 102 of 2014

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

written statement denied the averments of the claim petition. It is further contended that the said vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 and in the event compensation is awarded, respondent No.2 be directed to pay the same.

¶42

Respondent No.2 in its written statement denied the contents of the claim petition and further contended that the tractor-trailer was not at all involved in the accident. In fact, it asserted that deceased had fall from a bullock cart and sustained injuries, eventually succumbing to them. Therefore, respondent No.2 is not liable to indemnify or pay any compensation. It was alleged that, just to claim compensation, a false case was made out by the claimants. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

¶43

From the rival contentions of the parties, the

¶44

Tribunal had framed the necessary issues for its determination.

¶45

The claimants' to prove their case examined claimant No.1 as PW.1 and marked 12 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.12. Respondents examined two witnesses as RWs.1 and 2 and marked 8 documents as Exs.R.1 to R.8.

¶46

5 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:19872 MFA No. 102 of 2014

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

The Tribunal after hearing both the parties and appreciating the evidence available on record, held that accident occurred due to the negligence of driver of the tractortrailer. It rejected the contention of the insurer that accident occurred due to fall from the bullock cart. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- p.m., applied multiplier ‘18’, deducted 50% of the income towards personal expenses and awarded total compensation of Rs.5,70,000/-. Being aggrieved by the same, respondent No.2insurer preferred this appeal.

¶50

I have heard arguments of learned counsel for the appellant.

¶51

Learned counsel for the insurer vehemently contends that respondent No.2 examined RW.2, the medical officer who made an endorsement in the medical records, as per the statement given by petitioner No.1 herein before him, while giving history of injury. Exs.R.2, R.3 and R.8 reveal that deceased died due to injuries sustained due to fall from bullock cart and not by involvement of the tractor-trailer. A complaint was lodged by insurer before police in this regard and it was

¶52

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:19872 MFA No. 102 of 2014

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

registered as per Ex.R.8. The Tribunal has not considered the said facts. The Tribunal considering the injuries sustained by the deceased held that such injuries could be caused only by the vehicle accident and rejected the contentions of the claimant. The said finding is erroneous and contrary to the materials placed on record. With these reasons, prayed to set aside the impugned judgment and allow the appeal.

¶55

The following questions are arises for my

¶56

consideration is as under;

¶57

"1. Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that accident had taken place due to involvement of the offending tractor-trailer bearing Reg.No.KA.16/T3963-3964 for causing death of Siddesh @ B. Siddeshi?

¶58

2. Whether interference of the said finding is required?

¶59

Re: Point Nos.1 and 2:-

¶60

Both these points are taken up together for discussion.

¶61

PW.1 is claimant No.1. In his evidence, he has stated

¶62

that his son met with an accident while joining the trailer to the tractor and sustained injuries. Immediately he was shifted to District Government Hospital at Chitradurga and as per the

¶63

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:19872 MFA No. 102 of 2014

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

medical advice, he was shifted to Basaveshwara Hospital, Chitradurga and while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to the injuries at 12.45 p.m. In his cross-examination, the respondent No.2-insurer suggested its defence and he denied the said suggestions. He relied on the documents i.e., FIR, complaint, spot mahazar, inquest panchanama, post mortem, IMV report and charge sheet at Exs.P.1 to P.7. As stated in the charge sheet, it is mentioned that the said Siddesh @ B. Siddeshi died due to rash and negligent driving of tractor-trailer by its driver. To prove the income, RTCs of the properties are placed on record.

¶66

The manger of the insurance company was examined as RW.1 and in his evidence he has stated that as per the records collected by him, the deceased while going on the bullock cart fell down and sustained injuries and thereafter, succumbed to the injuries. In his cross-examination, the claimants suggested that he had not died by falling from the bullock cart but by the user of the tractor-trailer. Respondents examined RW.2 i.e., doctor who treated Siddesh @ B. Siddeshi and made endorsement in the MLC register regarding history of the injuries. In the cross-examination, it was suggested that

¶67

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:19872 MFA No. 102 of 2014

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

due to fall of the hook of the trailer, such injury could be possible. It is pertinent to note that according to the post mortem report, death was not by fall of hook on the leg but injury to vital part of the body. Respondents also produced medical records from the District Government Hospital at Exs.R.2 and R.3.

¶70

The Tribunal has not considered the injuries sustained by the deceased, which are mentioned in the postmortem report. According to the suggestions of RW.2, the hook of the trailer fell on the leg of the deceased. The deceased was aged about 20 years and his height, as shown in Ex.P.5 i.e, post mortem report is 166 cm. If that is a case, there may not be chances of causing injury to the scrotum, abdomen and thigh etc., by fall of hook of the trailer. The height of the trailer may be one and half to two feet. Under such circumstances, causing of such injuries is not probable.

¶71

Ex.R.2 i.e., MLC register along with a medical intimation, reveals that the injury sustained by the deceased was by "fall from bullock cart". The said endorsement is dated 19.02.2010 at 7.00 a.m. Even in the intimation sent by the Basaveswara Medical College to the concerned SHO, it is

¶72

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:19872 MFA No. 102 of 2014

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

mentioned that "alleged history of fall from bullock cart at 7.00 to 7.30 a.m. on 19.02.2010 at Mattikallahally Village, while riding the bullock cart and sustained the injuries". He was admitted to emergency ward. The patient expired at 12.45 p.m. The said intimation was sent to the hospital immediately after death, around 12.45 p.m. Ex.R.2 is a MLC register copy of District Hospital, Chitradurga, it also reveals "the history of fall from bullock cart at 7.00 a.m on 19.02.2010". In Ex.R.3 the same facts are mentioned and it was signed by none other than claimant No.1 herein.

¶75

There is no explanation in this regard either in the cross-examination of RW.1 or RW.2. It appears that a complaint was lodged by respondent No.2 in respect of the alleged fraud played by claimants of this case, before the Rural Police Station, Chitradurga, as per Ex.R.4 dated 21.12.2010. The concerned police said to be registered an FIR as per Ex.R.7. In Ex.R.8(a) to (b) that is again the MLC register of Basaveshwar Medical College, Chitradurga, it is mentioned that the deceased sustained injuries with alleged history "of fall from bullock cart" and said endorsement was signed by claimant No.1. There are no materials to overcome the said evidence. The concerned

¶76

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:19872 MFA No. 102 of 2014

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

investigation officer had not properly investigated the case and not considered the said medical records. Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal that injury sustained by the deceased could be possible by a vehicle accident and not by a bullock cart, is not a justifiable reason. Therefore, the claimant failed to establish that accident occurred due to involvement of the tractor-trailer.

¶79

Mere filing of charge sheet does not mean that it has to be accepted blindly. It only shows the prima facie case in favour of the claimant that a criminal case was registered for committing such offence. It is not conclusive proof of the incident. It has rebuttable presumption insurer rebutted the said presumption. The insurer brought to light the biased investigation conducted by the police officers. Respondent No.2-insurer has taken pain in rebutting the said presumption. Under these circumstances, awarding the compensation is not justifiable.

¶80

For the above said discussions, I answer point No.1 in the negative and point No.2 in the affirmative and proceed to pass following:

¶81

11 -

¶82

NC: 2025:KHC:19872 MFA No. 102 of 2014

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

ORDER

¶85

i. The appeal is allowed.

¶86

ii. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge and Additional MACT, Chitradurga, in MVC.No.778/2010 dated 19.09.2013 is set aside.

¶87

iii. The claim petition is dismissed.

¶88

iv. Whatever amount deposited by the insurer shall be refunded to the insurer on due acknowledge.

¶89

v. Send back TCR with copy of judgment to trial Court.

¶90

Sd/(UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE

¶91

AMA

¶92

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sri T Mudduraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sri T Mudduraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Master Mohammed Althaf Vs Mr Hasanabba Sheikh

Cholamandalam Ms General Vs Annaiah

Kum Deeksha J Vs Mahesh Kumar

Joy @ Joseph Moben Vs Vasantha Suvarna

Sri. Vinaykumar Vs Lakshminarayana

Ravikiran.B Vs Mr. Srinivas v. Major