M/S Reliance General Ins.Co.Ltd Vs Paramashivaiah B.N

SHIRPA SINGH B.R., S/O RAVISHANKAR SINGH, HINDU, MAJOR, NO.6, 1^ST MAIN, 1^ST CROSS, MUNNEKOLALA, MARATHAHALLI BRIDGE, BENGALURU – 560 037. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;

¶15

V/O DATED 26.03.2021 NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:47027 MFA No. 2450 of 2016

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.01.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.4765/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XX ACMM, MEMBER,MACT, BENGALURU, (SCCH-24), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.1,29,208/WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal by the Insurance Company, calling in question the judgment and award dated 23.01.2016 in MVC No.4765/2012 passed by the XXII Additional Small Causes Judge & XX A.C.M.M. & Member, M.A.C.T., Bengaluru (hereinafter to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short), on the ground of liability.

¶23

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:47027 MFA No. 2450 of 2016

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

Heard Sri Ashok N. Patil, learned counsel for the

¶26

appellant and Sri G.S. Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.1-claimant. Vide order dated 26.03.2021, notice of this appeal to respondent No.2 is held sufficient.

¶27

Sri Ashok N. Patil, learned counsel argues the

¶28

case mainly on the following three grounds:

¶29

i. There is a delay of two days in filing the complaint.

¶30

ii. In the complaint, it is stated that it is a selfaccident.

¶31

iii. Subsequently, after nearly one and a half months, a further statement of the complainant came to be recorded, wherein the complainant has stated that the injured disclosed to him that he was hit by a car from behind.

¶32

Sri Ashok N. Patil, vehemently submits that the injured in his cross-examination has admitted that he was discharged from the hospital on 30.12.2011, and was further admitted on 08.12.2012 and again discharged on 11.12.2012. However, there was no whisper regarding the accident caused by the driver of the car.

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:47027 MFA No. 2450 of 2016

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Suddenly, after one and a half months, a further statement comes to be recorded narrating the aforesaid facts. In the circumstances, this narration becomes highly unbelievable. The history of the accident and the injuries suffered clearly shows that, the insured vehicle has been implanted. Apart from this, the injured was a police person belonging to Police Department and there is all possibility of collusion to facilitate the claimant to seek compensation.

¶37

He further states that, though the Insurance Company has not led any evidence, the documents produced by the claimant themselves speak about the incident. The Tribunal has failed to consider these aspects, which has resulted in awarding compensation and fastening the liability on the insurer by holding that the driver of the insured car is responsible for the accident. Accordingly, he sought to allow the appeal and set aside the award insofar as the appellant/insurer is considered.

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:47027 MFA No. 2450 of 2016

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Refuting the submissions, Sri G.S. Patil, learned

¶41

counsel vehemently submits that the discharge summary clearly shows that the injured was unconscious had suffered severe head injuries. He was under treatment for about 30 days and was subsequently re-admitted in the month of December. As per the Medical Board report, he was stated to be unfit to continue in the force, which made him to resign from the post.

¶42

The complaint was given under misconception, treating it as a ‘self-accident’. After the injured was appraised regarding the complaint by the complainant (son of the injured), the injured narrated to him the real facts regarding the accident. Thereafter, the further statement of the complainant was recorded, that the accident was caused by the car which was following the motorcycle. He further submits that the appellant/Insurance Company has not led any evidence to discredit the evidence of the claimant . Mere crossexamination and the FIR, which is only an initial document

¶43

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:47027 MFA No. 2450 of 2016

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

to set the criminal law in motion, cannot be relied upon to escape from the liability, when the charge sheet is filed, left in fact without any challenge. With these, he sought to dismiss the appeal.

¶46

In reply, on the contention of discontinuation from service due to the injuries, Sri Ashok N. Patil, taking this Court through paragraph No.23 of the judgment, submits that the Tribunal has held that no documents have been produced by the injured to show that he was declared unfit to continue in the job or he resigned from the post. He further submits that neither any document nor any Superior Officer of the department has been examined by the claimant to prove his discontinuation from service. The Tribunal has considered this aspect and held that the injured is not entitled to any compensation under the head of ‘Loss of Future Earnings’ in view of failure to prove discontinuation from service.

¶47

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:47027 MFA No. 2450 of 2016

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

Having heard the learned counsel for the

¶50

parties, perused the entire appeal papers and the Trial Court record.

¶51

It is trite that the complaint is not an

¶52

encyclopedia, it is just an information to set the criminal law in motion regarding the incident. It is for the Police Officer, during investigation gather substantial material regarding the incident reported and to submit the charge sheet regarding the alleged incident. In the case on hand, during the course of investigation, the police have recorded the further statement regarding the involvement of car in the accident and filed charge sheet. The owner of the vehicle, though represented, has not taken any plea and contested the matter.

¶53

The Insurance Company, though it has crossexamined the injured on the aspect of non-involvement of the vehicle, has not examined any witness to substantiate the stand taken before the Tribunal. Even the Insurance Company has not taken any pain to summon the

¶54

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:47027 MFA No. 2450 of 2016

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

Investigating Officer regarding the filing of the charge sheet on the basis of the complaint stating self accident. If the vehicle was not involved in the accident, the insured or the insurer could have challenged the charge sheet before the appropriate forum.

¶57

Be that as it may there is nothing on record placed by the Insurance Company to contend that, except the further statement, there were no other documents available with the police to file charge sheet, involves the car, in the accident.

¶58

In these circumstances, it is difficult for this Court to accept the contentions raised by the appellantInsurance Company. The Tribunal after considering the material evidence placed answered Issue No.1 against the offending driver holding him responsible for the accident and awarded compensation appropriately. This Court finds no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal warranting interference.

¶59

9 -

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC:47027 MFA No. 2450 of 2016

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

For the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the

¶63

following:

¶64

ORDER

¶65

i. The appeal is dismissed . ii. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement. The appellant-Insurance Company shall deposit the balance compensation along with accrued interest before the concerned Tribunal within six weeks from the date of copy of this order.

¶66

iii. Upon deposit, the entire amount shall be released in favour of the claimant proper identification.

¶67

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶68

TMP

¶69

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

M/S Reliance General Ins.Co.Ltd v. Paramashivaiah B.N

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Reliance General Ins.Co.Ltd v. Paramashivaiah B.N

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

Akbar Sab Vs the Managing Director

Smt Chondavva P E Vs Sri Murali v

Mr Narayana Shetty Vs Mrs Nayana Holla

Sri. Ramesh Babu D Vs the Managing Director

M/S United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt Geetha Bhai

Pradeep v M Vs Reliance Gen Ins Co. Ltd.