The Divisional Manager Vs Harshitha

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER M/S THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED DIVISIONAL OFFICE, S. S. COMPLEX, SUBHASH CHOWK, HASSAN THROUGH ITS REGISTERED OFFICE LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX, NO.44/45, RESIDENCY ROAD BANGALORE – 560 025 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. UMESH B S., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

HARSHITHA, D/O PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS, SINCE MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER VEDAVATHI, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDENT OF BYAKARAVALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SAKALESHPURA TALUK – 573 134.

¶16

KRISHNAMURTHY, S/O HANUMEGOWDA, AGE MAJOR, EXACT NOT KNOW, RESIDING AT KUVEMPUNAGAR ROAD,

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:40021 MFA No. 8143 of 2014

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

2^ND STAGE, VIDYANAGAR HASSAN TOWN – 573 201

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT. SANDHYA D, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. A. R. SHARADAMBA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶23

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO a) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT & AWARD DATED 15.07.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.1306/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, & ADDL. MACT, SAKALESHPURA; b) DISMISS THE PETITION MVC NO.1306/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. MACT, SAKALESHPURA WITH COSTS AS AGAINST THIS APPELLANT AND ETC

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

This appeal is by the Insurance Company calling in question the judgment and award dated 15.07.2014 in MVC No.1306/2012 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Sakaleshpur, (for short, ‘Tribunal’) whereby, the claim petition filed by the minor claimant came to be partly allowed granting compensation of Rs.1,26,000/- so also directing the Insurance Company to pay the compensation.

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:40021 MFA No. 8143 of 2014

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

The parties shall be referred as per their

¶31

rankings before the Tribunal for easy reference.

¶32

Heard Sri.Umesh B.S., learned counsel appearing

¶33

for the appellant - Insurance Company and Smt.Sandhya D., learned counsel for the respondent No.1. Though notice is served to respondent No.2, he remained unrepresented.

¶34

A short point on which the appeal is filed is as under:-

¶35

Sri.Umesh B.S., learned counsel for the appellant argued on two points calling in question the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal; firstly, there is delay of 54 days in filing the complaint, the reason for such delay has not been properly explained by the complainant and secondly, in Ex.R.2 – MLC extract, it is stated that RTA 9.00 a.m. 09.03.2012, place Byakaravalli, hit by bike to pedestrian and referred from S.K.Pure Government Hospital, where they made NIL MLC with history of fall.

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:40021 MFA No. 8143 of 2014

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

These are the two grounds on which the learned counsel

¶39

for the appellant seeks to set aside the judgment and award of the Tribunal contending that this Court needs to consider these aspects of the matter. He further submits

¶40

that it is settled position of law that whenever, there is inordinate delay, the same is to be explained properly and any short explanation would be considered adversely against the party. The MLC report at Ex.R.2 clearly shows that place is mentioned as Byakaravalli whereas, as per the complaint and police record, the accident has taken place in the city of Sakleshpura i.e., near Ayyappaswamy Temple, Laxmipura, Sakleshpura Town, Hassan, Karnataka. So also there is a mention of history of fall. These are not properly explained and considered by the Tribunal. On these grounds, he sought to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and award passed against the Insurance Company.

¶41

Refuting the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant – Insurance Company, learned counsel for

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:40021 MFA No. 8143 of 2014

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

the respondent No.1 Smt.Sandhya D., with all vehemence

¶45

submitted that Ex.P.6 – wound certificate is issued by the

¶46

very same hospital which has issued the MLC at Ex.R.2. As per Ex.P.6 – wound certificate, immediately after accident i.e., on the very same day on 09.03.2012 at about 12 noon, the minor claimant was admitted to the hospital for treatment and she was treated in the said hospital and subsequently, discharged from the hospital on 07.05.2012. The Tribunal has considered this aspect of matter so also the evidence of the Doctor, who has clearly stated in his evidence which has also been culminated in paragraph No.14 of the judgment, wherein, it is stated that the Doctor, who was in casualty sent information to the police department but the police did not visited the hospital and recorded the statement of injured or her father or mother.

¶47

On perusal of Ex.P.2 – complaint, which clearly shows that the father of claimant has given the explanation for the delay of 54 days caused in lodging the

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:40021 MFA No. 8143 of 2014

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

complaint. The reasons stated in the complaint is that, he

¶51

was alone taking care of minor daughter in the hospital. Admittedly, she was in the hospital till 07.05.2012 and since, there was nobody to look after the minor claimant and he was the only person to look after her, he could not lodge complaint. Even prior to discharge, on verification, he came to know that there was no complaint filed and he has lodged complaint on 03.05.2012 explaining the delay.

¶52

Insofar as Ex.R.2 is concerned, the place shown in the said document i.e., Byakaravalli as per the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, it is the residential address of the injured claimant which is clearly depicted in the said document itself. There is also a clear mention of hit by motor bike to pedestrian. The Tribunal having considered the entire material placed before it has answered all the issues against the Insurance Company and held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation.

¶53

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:40021 MFA No. 8143 of 2014

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

A conjoint reading of Ex.P.6 – wound certificate

¶56

and Ex.R.2 – MLC extract, which clearly show that immediately after the accident, the injured was taken to the hospital and treated and the very same hospital has issued MLC, which has inadvertently mentioned the place of residence instead of mentioning the place of accident. That alone will not take away the entire case of the injured claimant. Admittedly, she has suffered injuries which confined the minor claimant in the hospital for a period of more than 55 days.

¶57

After going through the entire material on record, this Court did not find any infirmities in the order passed by the Tribunal in awarding compensation as well as fastening the liability on the Insurance Company to pay the compensation. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following:-

¶58

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:40021 MFA No. 8143 of 2014

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

ORDER

¶61

i) The appeal sans merits and accordingly, dismissed .

¶62

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

¶63

iii) The appellant – Insurance Company shall deposit balance compensation amount along with interest as ordered by the Tribunal within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶64

iv) No order as to costs.

¶65

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶66

MH/-

¶67

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

The Divisional Manager v. Harshitha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Manager v. Harshitha

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

Mahanthaswamy R Virakthamath Vs Superintending Engineer

Sri Amasidda @ Amogsiddha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Narayanrao v Kulkarni Vs the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Sri. P. Ramesha Vs M. Mujeeb Ali

Dayananda Naik Vs Sri Akshay

Shri Nagesh G Vs Shri K.L.Nagendra