The Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co.Ltd Vs Smt Ambika

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2532 MFA No. 22101 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.22101 OF 2012 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., DAVANGERI, REP/BY ANIL H.KABADI, AGE: 50 YEARS, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., HUBLI.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI S.V. YAJI, ADVOCATE (V/C))

¶11

AND:

¶12

SMT. AMBIKA D/O. VASANT HOSAMANI, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: LECTURER, R/O: M.G. ROAD, OPP. MAHESH MEDICAL STORES, RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶13

SHRI. SHEKAR SHETTY S/O. ANNU SHETTY, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: GUDDEYADADAL, PO: HOUSEKALASA, CHIKKAMANGALUR DIST.

¶14

Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SHRI. GANESHAPPA S/O. KARIBASAPPA BAGADI, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MARUTI NAGAR, 4^TH MAIN, 2^ND CROSS, RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI CHANDRASHEKHAR M.HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI P.G. CHIKKANARAGUND, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R3 IS SERVED)

¶18

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20-01-2012, PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, RANEBENNUR IN MVC.NO.358/2009 BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION AGAINST THIS APPELLANT AND ETC.,

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2532 MFA No. 22101 of 2012

¶21

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

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)

¶24

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 20.01.2012, passed in MVC No.358/2009, by the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Ranebennur (for short, ‘Tribunal’).

¶25

It is the case of claimant that on 17.08.2008, at about 12-45 hours, claimant along with her mother and sister was going to Lord Hanuman temple at Kadaramandalagi in the auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA.18/7413 as authorized passenger. The driver of said auto rickshaw driving the same with rash and negligent manner without following traffic rules and regulations and when it came near bypass road on PB road i.e., on Ranebenur-Haveri road, driver of auto rickshaw lost control over the vehicle and toppled it down on left side of the road and caused the accident. Due to which,

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2532 MFA No. 22101 of 2012

¶27

claimant sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Thus, filed the claim petition seeking compensation.

¶28

The Tribunal has awarded compensation under

¶29

various heads as under:

¶30

Sl. No.	Heads.	Amount in (Rs.)
1.	Towards injury, pain and agony.	25,000/-
2.	Towards medical expenses.	37,000/-
3.	Towards food and nutritious and attendant charges.	10,000/-
4.	Loss of income due to disability	50,000/-
	Total:	1,22,000/-

¶31

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that in

¶32

the complaint-Ex.P2 and FIR-Ex.P1, the number of auto rickshaw is mentioned as KA-18-7314. But in the claim petition, the number of auto rickshaw is mentioned as KA18-7413. Therefore, there is a huge discrepancy in mentioning nature, description and number of said vehicle, which goes to recourse in the case, in rendering claimant is not entitled to any compensation. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company questioned the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2532 MFA No. 22101 of 2012

¶34

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent justified the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

¶35

In the present case, there are discrepancy found in mentioning the number of auto rickshaw as KA18-7314 and KA-18-7413. But throughout the evidence of both oral and documentary, the nature and description of vehicle is same as auto rickshaw and is not disputed. The only dispute is regarding its number in the complaintEx.P2, FIR-Ex.P1 and in the claim petition. In the complaint-Ex.P2 and FIR-Ex.P1, the number of auto rickshaw is mentioned as KA-18-7314 and in the claim petition the number of said vehicle is mentioned as KA-187413. Whether this discrepancy is bona fide or going to the root of the case is to be appreciated as per evidence produced before the Tribunal.

¶36

In the claim petition, claimant has stated that

¶37

while lodging complaint before the police, due to inadvertence and by mistake, the number of auto rickshaw

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2532 MFA No. 22101 of 2012

¶39

is mentioned as KA-18-7314, but actually the number of auto rickshaw is KA-18-7413. The nature and description of auto rickshaw is same in respect of both numbers. Ex.P10 is Indemnity bond, in which, the auto rickshaw number is mentioned as KA-18-7413 and accordingly got released the said vehicle from the Court. Therefore, the respondent No.2/owner of auto rickshaw herein has mentioned the number of auto rickshaw as KA-18-7413. Ex.P22 and Ex.P23 is ‘B’ register extracts, which is pertaining to auto rickshaw only. Therefore, from all these evidence on record, it is proved that the claimant while filing complaint before the police has inadvertently stated the number of auto rickshaw as KA-18-7314. But virtually the auto rickshaw number involved in the accident is KA18-7413. There is a discrepancy in mentioning number of said vehicle. Therefore, the Insurance Company cannot take disadvantage of this discrepancy.

¶40

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2532 MFA No. 22101 of 2012

¶41

Therefore, by considering overall facts,

¶42

circumstances, and evidence on record, it is proved that the auto rickshaw number KA-18-7413 is involved in the accident. Therefore, there is no merit found in the statement made by learned counsel for the

¶43

appellant/Insurance Company.

¶44

Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant i.e., fracture of left clavicle bone and hairline fracture of medial malelous left side and claimant is working as lecturer and she continued in same service, the Tribunal is correct in not awarding compensation under the head of loss of future income due to disability. Further, on other heads, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. Therefore, there is no need of interference by this with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶45