The Branch Manager Vs Ramaiah

THE BRANCH MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BRANCH OFFICE, 1^ST FLOOR, S.S.COMPLEX, (CHURCH OPP:) B.H.ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, BY NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.144, SUBHARAM COMPLEX, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. BY ITS MANAGER.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. O MAHESH, ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G

¶13

AND:

¶14

G 1. RAMAIAH Location: HIGH AGED 63 YEARS, COURT OF S/O LATE SHAMANNA, KARNATAKA R/O KAMBADA BEEDI ROAD, TARIKERE TOWN-577 228.

¶15

MOHAMMED JAVEED, AGE 43 YEARS, S/O ABDUL WAJID AND YASMIN C/O MODERN ENGINEERING WORKS, OPP: ASHIRWAD HOSPITAL, N.H.ROAD, TARIKERE-577 228.

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:19446 MFA No. 7285 of 2013

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

SYED JAFFAR SADIQ MAJOR, S/O BABA SAB, R/O 5^TH CROSS, KODI CAMP, TARIKERE TOWN-577 228.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH N.D, ADVOCATE for r1, SRI.C.J. SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR R3, VIDE ORDER DATED 19.03.2018, SERVICE OF NOTICE R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶21

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED26.06.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.61/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PRINCIPAL JMFC, MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, TARIKERE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.3,89,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶22

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

This appeal is filed by the insurer - respondent No.3 challenging the judgment and award dated 26.06.2013 passed in MVC.No.61/2011 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and MAMACT at Tarikere (for short 'Tribunal').

¶25

The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:19446 MFA No. 7285 of 2013

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

Brief facts of the case of claimant are that on 12.03.2011 at about 8.30 p.m on NH-206 before Vinayaka talkies of Tarikere town, the claimant was walking at the side of the road; at that time, the rider of motor bike bearing registration No.KA:18/U -3784 rode his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the claimant. As a result of which, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital for treatment. Thereafter, for higher treatment, he was shifted to Kasturba hospital, Manipal. He spent huge amount towards treatment

¶29

charges and he has been suffering from permanent disability. On these grounds, he has prayed for awarding compensation of Rs.10 lakhs.

¶30

Respondent No.1 is the driver, respondent No.2 is the owner of the vehicle and respondent No.3 is the insurer of the offending vehicle.

¶31

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed joint objections denying the contentions of the claimant. They have further contended that respondent No.1 was driving the

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:19446 MFA No. 7285 of 2013

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

said vehicle with proper care and caution. He was not responsible for the accident. It is further contended by respondent No.2 that said vehicle was insured with Respondent No.3 and it is liable to pay the compensation. With these reasons prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶35

Respondent No.3 in its written statement denied

¶36

the contentions of the claimant. It has stated that the said vehicle was falsely implicated in this case. It also denied its liability to pay compensation. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

¶37

From the rival contentions of the parties

¶38

necessary issues were framed by the Tribunal.

¶39

Tribunal recorded evidence of PW-1 and PW-2

¶40

and marked Exs.P1 to P10. The Tribunal examined Court Commissioner as CW-1 and marked documents at Exs.C1 to C4 and Respondent No.2 examined one witness as RW1 and marked documents as Ex.R-1.

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:19446 MFA No. 7285 of 2013

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Upon hearing both the parties, Tribunal held that

¶44

the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the motorbike by its rider; and awarded total compensation of Rs.3,89,000/-. The same is challenged by the respondent No.3 - Insurer in the present appeal.

¶45

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶46

I have anxiously perused the records.

¶47

Learned counsel for appellant-insurer vehemently

¶48

contended that as per the case made out by the claimant in the claim petition as well as in the FIR, the vehicle involved in the accident was KA:18/U-3784. However, in the seizure and motor vehicle inspection report, vehicle number mentioned as KA:14/U-3784. He further contended that as per the seizure mahazar, vehicle was seized on 14.03.2011 between 4.00 p.m to 4.45 p.m, whereas Motor vehicle inspection report stated that intimation was received by the concerned police station on 14.03.2011 at 10.00 a.m. This indicates that, before the seizure of the vehicle, an

¶49

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:19446 MFA No. 7285 of 2013

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

intimation was sent to RTO to inspect the vehicle and give the report. Even in the medical evidence, vehicle number was not mentioned. These facts create serious doubts about the involvement of the two wheeler bearing registration No.KA:18/U-3784, in the accident. However, the Tribunal has not considered the said fact. The vehicle No.KA:14/U3784 was not insured with respondent No.3. If the said vehicle was involved in the accident, then the respondent No.3 is not liable to pay the compensation. With these reasons, prayed to set aside the impugned judgment.

¶52

The following questions arise for my

¶53

determination:

¶54

i. Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent riding of the motorbike bearing registration No.KA:18/U-3784?

¶55

ii. What order?

¶56

The claimant was examined as PW-1. In his

¶57

evidence he has reiterated the facts stated in the claim petition. He has stated that the vehicle involved in the

¶58

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:19446 MFA No. 7285 of 2013

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

accident was KA:18/U-3784. The rider of the vehicle drove it in a rash and negligent manner and hit the claimant and caused the injuries. In his cross-examination he pleaded ignorance of the seizure of the vehicle bearing registration No.KA:14/U-3784 and also pleaded ignorance about the inspection of the said vehicle by motor vehicle inspector. He denied the suggestion that the accident had not taken place due to involvement of motor cycle bearing registration No.KA:14/U-3784. It is the case of the claimant that the accident had taken place on 12.03.2011 around 8.30 p.m. The complaint was filed on the next date around 5.30 p.m. The vehicle number stated in Ex.P2 i.e. complaint is KA:18/U-3784. The very same number is mentioned in Ex.P1. In Ex.P3 - the spot mahazar, the vehicle number is mentioned as KA:18/U-3784. Ex.P4 is the seizure mahazar, it reveals the name of the owner as Mohammed Javeed. Respondent No.1 produced the said vehicle to the police station. The vehicle number was mentioned as KA:14/U3784. Description of the vehicle is also mentioned therein. It is true that in Ex-P5 - wound certificate, vehicle number is

¶61

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:19446 MFA No. 7285 of 2013

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

not mentioned and it is only mentioned as road traffic accident. Ex.P6 - IMV report, there are inconsistency in the timing of the said report as highlighted by the appellant herein. The vehicle number is mentioned as KA:14/U-3784 and it was inspected on 14.03.2011 at 18.00 hrs (i.e. 6.00 p.m). date, time and receipt of requisition is mentioned as 14.03.2011 at 10.00 a.m. At that point of time, even the vehicle was not produced before the investigating officer. It is also true that the claimant has not produced the copy of the charge sheet.

¶64

Except in Exs.P4 and P6, other papers as well as the evidence of PW-1, the vehicle number is clearly mentioned. To explain the discrepancy in Exs.P4 and P6, the claimant examined PW-2, who has stated that, due to mistake, the vehicle number was wrongly mentioned in Exs.P4 and P6. It ought to be KA:18/U-3784 instead of KA:14/U-3784. He consistently stated that vehicle number involved in the accident is KA:18/U-3784. In his crossexamination, nothing was brought out to discard his evidence.

¶65

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:19446 MFA No. 7285 of 2013

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed written

¶68

statement in which they have contended that respondent No.2 was the owner of the offending vehicle and respondent No.1 was the rider of the said vehicle at the time of the accident. They have not contended that their vehicle was not involved in the accident. They have not challenged charge sheet filed against rider of vehicle on that ground. The claimant was not at all responsible for the said mistake. The claimant shall not suffer for the mistake of others. Therefore, the contention of the insurer that since there is a mistake in vehicle number at Exs.P4 and P6, the said vehicle is not involved in the accident is not at all tenable.

¶69

On re-appreciating the evidence, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and does not call for interference. The Tribunal assigning the reason held that the accident had taken place due to involvement of the two wheeler bearing registration No.KA:18/U-3784, I do not find any reason to interfere wit the said finding.

¶70