National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri Soorya Kumar

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:23597 MFA No. 8211 of 2013

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8211 OF 2013 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.144, SUBHARAM COMPLEX, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASST. MANAGER SMT. KALAVATHI.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. ANUP SEETHA RAMA RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI. SOORYA KUMAR S/O LATE GANAPATHI ACHARYA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

¶13

Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

KUM. SUMALATHA, D/O LATE GANAPATHI ACHARYA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS

¶15

BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF "SOUPARNIKA NIVASA" ULIYA, ALANKAR POST, MARPADI VILLAGE, MOODABIDRI, MANGALORE TALUK - 574 227.

¶16

SMT. BENADICTA SERRAO W/O MR ELIAS SERRAO

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:23597 MFA No. 8211 of 2013

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDENT OF H NO .107, TACCODE POST, PUCHAMOGARU VILLAGE, MANGALORE TALUK - 574 227. (OWNER OF TATA ESTATE NO KA.01/N-2777)

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(R1 TO R3 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.5.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.1507/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE IST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT-6, MANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.5,17,000/-WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

This appeal is filed by respondent No.2/insurer challenging the judgment and award dated 25^th May 2013, passed by the 1^st Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT at Mangalore, (for short `Tribunal'), in MVC No.1507/2010.

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:23597 MFA No. 8211 of 2013

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

For the sake of convenience, the parties are

¶30

referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

¶31

Brief facts of the case are that, on 11.09.2010, around 05.00 p.m., the deceased-Chandra Acharya @ Chandra met with an accident near Beravu Junction on Moodabidri Bantwal Road, due to rash and negligent driving of TATA vehicle bearing registration No.KA-01-N2777 (for short 'offending vehicle') by its driver. As a result, he sustained grievous injury and while under going treatment, he succumbed to the injuries on 12.09.2010.

¶32

It is further the case of the claimants that the deceased was aged about 25 years at the time of accident and he was working as a wood polisher and earning Rs.350/- per day. The deceased was contributing his income to the family. The claimants', being brother and sisters residing with him, have prayed to award compensation Rs.14,00,000/-.

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:23597 MFA No. 8211 of 2013

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Respondent No.1 is the owner remained

¶36

exparte before the Tribunal. Respondent No.2 in its objections denied contentions of the claimant and denied its liability to pay the compensation and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

¶37

From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed the necessary issues.

¶38

The claimants to prove their case examined two witnesses as PWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.P1 to P17. Respondents examined one witness as RW.1 and marked three documents as Exs.R1 to R3.

¶39

The Tribunal after hearing both the parties and appreciating the evidence available on record, held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver. The Tribunal has awarded the following amount of compensation:

¶40

Particulars	Amount in Rs.
Medical expenses, transportation of dead	75,000/-

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:23597 MFA No. 8211 of 2013

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

body and funeral expenses
Loss of love and affection		10,000/-
Pecuniary loss (loss of	estate)	4,32,000/-
(Rs.4000X12X18X1/2)
Total		5,17,000/-

¶44

I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant. Court notice was served on the respondents, but there is no representation on behalf of the claimant-respondent No.2.

¶45

10. Following point arise for consideration:

¶46

(ii) W hether the Tribunal has erred in holding that due to involvement of the vehicle bearing registration No.KA-01-N-2777 accident took place?

¶47

Claimant No.1 i.e., PW-1, is claimed to be an eyewitness to the incident. In his evidence before the Tribunal, he stated that he witnessed the incident and that deceased- Chandra Acharya @ Chandra, met with an accident while he was coming along with procession and

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:23597 MFA No. 8211 of 2013

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

was serving drinking water to the public. During his crossexamination, the insurer got his previous statement marked as Ex.R-1. Before the JMFC Court, he stated that he had not witnessed the accident and that he came to know about the accident later point of time. He has also mentioned that he signed the spot mahazar at the police station. In his cross-examination by the prosecutor he denied the suggestions that he was an eye witness. Evidence of PW.1 is not reliable before the police and the Tribunal he claims to be an eye witness, however, while giving evidence before JMFC Court, pertaining to this accident, he completely turned hostile. Hence, he is not a reliable and trustworthy witness. His evidence can't be believed. Except him claimants have not examined any other witnesses who had seen the accident.

¶51

Respondent No.2/insurer has produced Ex.R-3 i.e., the wound certificate issued by City Hospital Research

¶52

and Diagnostic Centre dated 18.09.2010. It pertains to the treatment of deceased. History of injury

¶53

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:23597 MFA No. 8211 of 2013

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

shows that the alleged RTA (run over by a lorry), "The said history of injury appeared to be given by the PW-1 to the doctor. PW-1 did not explain about said statement. It does not appears that concerned doctor has written the said endorsement without any information". It appears that the said car was falsely implicated in the accident just to seek the compensation from respondent No.2. Therefore, he did not support the case of prosecution in a criminal case registered to the accident in question, with an intention to protect the interest of accused of the criminal case i.e., driver of the car.

¶56

Immediately after the incident, although PW-1 claimed to be an eyewitness, he did not inform to the police. One Damodar Suvarna, was said to have witnessed the above incident had lodged the complaint, next day, around 11.00 a.m. According to Ex.P-1(a), the deceased was going in a procession along with others and he was at the end of the procession. At the spot of the incident, the driver of the car allegedly drove vehicle at a high speed

¶57

8 -

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:23597 MFA No. 8211 of 2013

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

and hit the deceased from behind. If the said facts were

¶61

true, then there were chances of others also got hurt/injured. However, except deceased none got hurt in the accident. It is difficult to believe the manner in which

¶62

the incident had taken place as stated in Ex.P-1(a). Looking at the injury stated in Ex.R-3, the postmortem report at Ex.P-15 and also the inquest (which is placed on record, but it is not marked), the incident had not taken place as narrated in the FIR or in the claim petition. It appears that accident must have occurred by a lorry as stated in Ex.R-3. Claimants came to know that due to some technical reasons they would not get compensation

¶63

and hence, colluded with the concerned authorities, implicated the car in the accident. It also appears that these documents have been created just to claim compensation from respondent No.2.

¶64

The Tribunal has not properly assessed the

¶65

evidence and has arrived at an incorrect conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of

¶66

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:23597 MFA No. 8211 of 2013

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

a car by its driver. The said finding is erroneous.

¶69

Therefore, it calls for interference by this court.

¶70

Since the said vehicle was falsely implicated in this case, the question of respondents liability to pay the compensation does not arise. 12. Accordingly, I answer the above question in the negative.

¶71

In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

¶72

ORDER

¶73

i) The Appeal is allowed .

¶74

ii) The judgment and award dated 25^th May 2013, passed in MVC.No.1507/2010, by the Court of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal & I Additional Senior Civil Judge at Mangalore, is set aside.

¶75

iii) The claim petition is dismissed.

¶76

iv) Whatever the amount deposited by

¶77

the appellant-insurer shall be refunded to the insurance company on due acknowledgment.

¶78