M/S United India Insurance Company Limited Vs C Prashanth

M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED., NO.40, LAKSHMI COMPLEX, 1^ST FLOOR, SRI. KRISHNARAJENDRA FORT ROAD, BENGALURU, NOW REP. BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, 6^TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001, REP. BY IS MANAGER.

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SRI. LAKSHMI NARASAPPA K S, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A M VENKATESH., ADVOCATE)

¶14

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

AND:

¶16

C PRASHANTH S/O LATE A. CHINNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT NO.72, 2^ND MAIN, SONENAHALLI, 10^TH CROSS, VIVEKNAGAR POST, BENGALURU – 560 047.

¶17

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR BMTC DIVISION, SHANTHINAGAR, K.H. ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 027.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:42312 MFA No. 2626 of 2015

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

(BY MS. SUSHMITHA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. N GOPALAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;

¶23

SRI. F. S. DABALI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶24

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.04.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.6396/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE 19^TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MACT, BANGALORE (SCCH-17) BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

This appeal is by the Insurance Company calling in question the judgment and award dated 02.04.2014 passed by the MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-17), ('Tribunal', for short), partly allowing the claim petition by awarding a sum of Rs.1,17,304/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, only on the ground of liability.

¶29

Heard Sri.Lakshmi Narasappa K.S., learned counsel for Sri.A.M.Venkatesh, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company and Ms.Sushmitha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.N.Gopalakrishna,

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:42312 MFA No. 2626 of 2015

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

learned counsel for respondent No.1 claimant and Sri.F.S.Dabali, learned counsel for respondent No.2 – Corporation.

¶33

Sri.Lakshmi Narasappa K.S., with all vehemence submits that in the FIR, there is no mention of vehicle number which has caused the accident except mentioning the route number of the Bus. It is stated in the complaint that, blue color BMTC bus bearing route No.201 came in a rash and negligent manner and ran over the left leg of the injured claimant at 8.45 a.m. on 21.02.2011. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that on the said point of time, though the Bus was en route Bus but has not plied at that point of time. To substantiate his claim, he has produced Form IV issued by BMTC as well as Trip sheet issued by BMTC at Exs.R.1 and R.4. The criminal case was filed against the driver of the Bus ended in acquittal. Though the same was substantially pleaded before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has not considered the same and found that the driver of the Bus, was rash and

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:42312 MFA No. 2626 of 2015

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

negligent while driving the Bus, reason for the accident, accordingly has fastened the liability on the insurer of the Bus to make good the compensation. The driver as well as conductor and officer of the Insurance Company has been examined to substantiate the contention. The

¶37

Tribunal has not considered evidence of the witnesses, which has resulted in awarding compensation though there is no involvement of the Bus as pleaded by the claimant. Accordingly, he sought to allow the appeal and set aside the liability fastened on the Bus driver.

¶38

Refuting the submissions of Sri.Lakshmi Narasappa K.S., Ms.Sushmitha, vehemently submitted that the accident has taken place at 8.45 a.m. on 21.02.2011. The claimant was taken to Bowring & Lady Curzon Hospital immediately and he was examined there at 9.20 a.m. The complaint came to be lodged on the very same day by the claimant at 5.00 p.m. in the hospital, upon requisition by the hospital to the police. Though number of the Bus was not reflected in the complaint, but

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:42312 MFA No. 2626 of 2015

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

it is clearly stated that one blue color Bus belong to BMTC

¶42

bearing route No.201 has caused the accident. Immediately, on the next day, Spot Mahazar was conducted i.e., on 22.02.2011. The eye witness - PW-3, who happens to be the friend of the injured showed the spot of the accident. In the Mahazar, he has clearly stated the number of Bus as KA-01-F-4802. The police upon information, conducted investigation, summoned the driver and seized the Bus and having completed the investigation, filed charge sheet before the concerned Court. The acquittal is on benefit of doubt which has no bearing on the claim made under the beneficial legislation.

¶43

The cross-examination of the eye witness falsifies

¶44

the entire case of the appellant - Insurance Company. In the cross-examination, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company suggested so many questions to the eye witness, which clearly shows that the Bus was indeed involved in the accident. In the cross-examination, it was suggested that, on the said eventful day, there was rush in

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:42312 MFA No. 2626 of 2015

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

the bus since it was Monday. The injured boarded subsequent to the eye witness. Though the Conductor cautioned them not to stand on the foot board but they have not heeded to his advice and they are responsible for the injury sustained. Further, it was suggested that immediately after accident, both driver and conductor advised eye witness to take injured to the hospital. These suggestions clearly shows that the Bus is involved in the accident. The Bus number was clearly stated by the eye witness on the next following day. Under these circumstances, the say of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that there is no involvement of Bus cannot be countenanced. The Tribunal after considering the entire material placed before it, rightly answered issue No.1 holding that the driver of the Bus is responsible for the accident and fastened the liability on the insurer, which does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, sought to dismiss the appeal.

¶48

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:42312 MFA No. 2626 of 2015

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

Sri.F.S.Dabali, learned counsel appearing on

¶51

behalf of the respondent No.2 – Corporation, neither supported the appellant nor the claimant but submitted that the Tribunal having found that there is valid and effective insurance policy, fastened the liability on the Insurance Company.

¶52

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties,

¶53

the only point that would arise for my consideration is as under:-

¶54

Whether the Tribunal is justified in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company to pay the compensation?

¶55

My answer to the above point for consideration is in the Affirmative for the following reasons:-

¶56

Though the Insurance Company has pleaded that there is non-involvement of vehicle, it is an admitted fact that the accident has taken place on 21.02.2011 at 8.45 a.m. on the following day i.e., on 22.02.2011 Spot

¶57

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:42312 MFA No. 2626 of 2015

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

Panchanama was conducted between 10.00 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. In the Spot Panchanama, there is clear mention of number of vehicle by the eye witness. The suggestions to the eye witness clearly shows that indeed Bus was plied on the said route at the said point of time. There is nothing worthwhile elicitated to disbelieve the evidence of eye witness. That apart, the cross-examination of the eye witness falsifies the case of the appellant, as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 – claimant.

¶60

The Tribunal having considered the entire material on record, answered issue No.1 framed on rash and negligent driving, against the driver of the Bus, holding that the driver of the bus is rash and negligent and reason for the accident. In view of the same, held the insurer of the Bus liable to pay compensation. A mere acquittal in criminal case will not take away the case of the claimant as it has no bearing on the claim petition. That apart, in criminal case, the Court granted an acquittal by

¶61

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:42312 MFA No. 2626 of 2015

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

giving the benefit of doubt as could be seen from the order of acquittal. In these circumstances, I do not see any infirmities in the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company.

¶64

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶65

ORDER

¶66

i) The appeal is dismissed.

¶67

ii) The amount in deposit be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal for disbursement.

¶68

iii) Balance amount along with interest ordered by the Tribunal shall be deposited by the Insurance Company within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶69

iv) On deposit, entire amount shall be released in favour of the respondent No.1 claimant forthwith.

¶70

NC: 2025:KHC:42312 MFA No. 2626 of 2015

¶71

10 -

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

v) Registry is directed to remit the entire trial Court records along with copy of this order to the Tribunal forthwith without giving any room for delay.

¶74

vi) No order as to costs.

¶75

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶76

MH/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

M/S United India Insurance Company Limited v. C Prashanth

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S United India Insurance Company Limited v. C Prashanth

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

Sri Lal Ahmed Kareemullah Vs Sri Santhosha K S

Sri. a. Sagaya Raj Vs Sri. Govindaraju H E

Mr. Keshava M. Poojary Vs Mr. Yogendra Poojary

Sri Srinivas Vs Sri Shabeer

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Dayananda

S D Veena Vs Smt Jnanamathi