Dismissed¶81

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Shubha @ Shobha

Karnataka HC17 Apr 2025MFA/8995/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MFA No. 8995 of 2018 decided on 17.04.2025 by Justice T.M.Nadaf, High Court of Karnataka. Insurer's appeal against MVC.No.2732/2016 award of Rs.4,09,639/- with 6% interest dismissed. Liability upheld despite four-day delay in FIR and absence of vehicle number in wound certificate; driver's guilty plea and payment of fine before JMFC noted. Quantum unaltered.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed confirming the judgment and award dated 26.06.2018 in MVC.No.2732/2016 passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCC-13); entire amount in deposit transferred forthwith to the concerned Tribunal for disbursement; balance amount with accrued interest at 6% per annum as per award shall be deposited by the insurance company within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order ¶81

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Shubha @ Shobha — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶81

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tribunal is right in fastening the liability on the insurance company, in the presence of a specific defense that there is a delay of 4 days in reporting the accident and nonmentioning of the number of the vehicle caused the accident in the Wound Certificate, Exhibit-P4 +1 more

¶55

Court's answer

The explanation offered by the complainant for reporting the crime after four days seems reasonable; there is no deliberate act in waiting to report the complaint for four days

¶63

Ratio / Principle

No rule or provision of the MV Act contemplates that the number of the vehicle which caused the accident is required to be mentioned in the Wound Certificate or MLC register

¶65

Key takeaways

Terming a mini goods vehicle as mini truck or truck is of no consequence to hold that the vehicle is not involved in the accidentratio¶66
RW-1 admitted in cross-examination that the driver pleaded guilt before JMFC Court and paid fine, and that parallel investigation report was conducted but not produced before the Tribunal; hence the defense regarding delay and non-involvement of the vehicle does not hold waterratio¶70

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor Vehicles Accident Claims — Appeal by insurer against Tribunal's award fastening liability and quantum — Delay of four days in lodging complaint explained by husband of injured as there was no one to look after his wife in hospital — Held reasonable, no deliberate act — No rule or provision of MV Act requiring vehicle number to be mentioned in Wound Certificate or MLC register — Terming mini goods vehicle as truck of no consequence — RW-1 admitted driver pleaded guilt before JMFC Court and paid fine; parallel investigation report not produced — Defense of delay and non-involvement of vehicle does not hold water — Liability on insurance company upheld — Quantum of Rs.4,09,639/- with 6% interest per annum confirmed, no interference required — Appeal dismissed.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:16101 MFA No. 8995 of 2018

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8995 OF 2018

¶7

(MV-I)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD MICRO OFFICE, OPP: TMC, B.M.ROAD, KUNIGAL , NOW BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, KRISHI BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001 BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. B A RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

SMT. SHUBHA @ SHOBHA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS W/O NARASIMHAMURTHY, R/O CHTRALINGANADODDI, ATHAGUR HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT PIN - 571428

¶15

SRI. RAMESHA D.C. MAJOR BY AGE, S/O CHIKKAHUCHAIAH, R/O DODDAMAVATHUR VILLAGE, HULIYURDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT PIN-572 130

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(R1 & R2 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:16101 MFA No. 8995 of 2018

¶20

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.06.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.2732/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE 2^ND ADDITIONAL JUDGE & 28^TH ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU (SCCH-13).

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

This appeal is by the appellant – United India Insurance Company Limited, calling in question the judgment and award dated 26.06.2018, in MVC.No.2732/2016, passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCC-13) on the ground of liability, as well as quantum.

¶25

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

¶26

Shorn of succinctly stated facts are as under:

¶27

The claimant – appellant, Smt.Subha @ Sobha suffered accidental injuries on 26.07.2005, at about 7.30 p.m., when she was riding on the bike bearing registration

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16101 MFA No. 8995 of 2018

¶29

No.KA-11-W-420 as a pillion rider met with an accident, due to the actionable negligence of the driver of tata mini goods vehicle bearing No.KA-17-A-342. Immediately, after the accident she was taken to Government Hospital, Maddur and after first aid she was admitted to Apollo Hospital, Mysuru as inpatient.

¶30

A crime comes to be registered on 30.07.2015 at about 1.00 p.m., before the Huliyurdurga Police Station, Tumakuru, in Crime No.123/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections-279 and 337 of IPC, against the driver of the Tata-207 Mini Goods Vehicle. Subsequently, charge-sheet comes to be laid for the offence punishable under Sections-279, 337 and 338 of IPC.

¶31

The claimant-petitioner filed a claim petition claiming compensation in a sum of Rs.25 lakhs for the injuries suffered in the accident, due to actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle.

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16101 MFA No. 8995 of 2018

¶33

Pursuant to the notice issued on the claim petition, respondent No.1 though served, remained absent and was placed exparte. Respondent No.2 – insurance company appeared through its counsel and filed its statement of objections contending that there is a delay of four days in lodging the complaint and the number of the offending vehicle is not mentioned in the MLC, as well as in the Wound Certificate. The driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid Driving License, interalia, contending that the claim petition filed is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

¶34

The injuries suffered by the claimant-petitioner

¶35

as per Wound Certificate, Exhibit-P4, are stated to be Grade-II compound fracture of tibia and fibula of left leg. She was treated in Apollo BGS Hospital, Mysuru, wherein she was inpatient for four days and she had underwent IL nailing left tibia, wound debridement and suturing of wound was done. She was advised to take follow up treatment. As per the evidence of PW-2, Dr.Ramesh, she

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:16101 MFA No. 8995 of 2018

¶38

has suffered 24% disability to the left lower limb, which would be 12% to the whole-body.

¶39

The Tribunal upon completion of pleading

¶40

framed four issues, which reads as under:

¶41

“1. Whether the petitioner proves that she had sustained injuries in road traffic accident on 26.7.2015 at about 7.30 p.m. occurred near N.B.Boraiah’s house, Nidasala-Chitralingana doddi Road, Huliyurudurga as contended in the petition ?

¶42

2. Whether the petitioner proves that the alleged accident is due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of mini goods vehicle bearing Regn.No.KA 17 A 342 as contended in the petition ?

¶43

3. Whether the petitioner proves that she is entitle for the compensation ? If so, to what extent and from whom ?

¶44

4. What order or award ?”

¶45

The claimant to prove her case examined as

¶46

PW-1 and other two witnesses as PW-2 and PW-3 and

¶47

produced 17 documents and marked the same as ExhibitsP1 to P17. The respondent – insurance company examined

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16101 MFA No. 8995 of 2018

¶49

its Officer as RW-1 and produced two documents and marked the same as Exhibits-R1 and R2.

¶50

The Tribunal on appreciation of the material on record and evidence adduced both oral and documentary, proceeded to award compensation in a sum of Rs.4,09,639/-, along with 6% interest per annum, under various heads holding that the driver of the vehicle belong to respondent No.1 is responsible for the accident, in view of the valid insurance policy and driving license, fastened the liability on the insurance company to deposit the compensation amount.

¶51

Calling in question the liability fastened on the insurance company to pay the compensation, so also on the quantum, the appellant - insurance company is in appeal.

¶52

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, perused the judgment and award impugned and the materials on record. The points that would arise for consideration is as under:

¶53

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:16101 MFA No. 8995 of 2018

¶55

i. Whether the Tribunal is right in fastening the liability on the insurance company, in the presence of a specific defense that there is a delay of 4 days in reporting the accident and nonmentioning of the number of the vehicle caused the accident in the Wound Certificate, Exhibit-P4, as well?

¶56

ii. Whether the compensation awarded by the impugned judgment requires any interference?

¶57

My answer to the above two questions framed,

¶58

insofar as question No.(i) Affirmative, question no.(ii) Negative, for the following reasons:

¶59

Sri.B.A.Ramakrishan, learned counsel appearing

¶60

for insurance company, vehemently submitted that there is a delay of four days in informing the Police regarding the accident caused by the vehicle insured. This creates serious doubt on the involvement of the vehicle. That apart, he submits that there is no mention of vehicle number in the Wound Certificate issued by the concerned Medical Officer at Exhibit-P4, rather there is only a mention that ‘a hit by a truck while she (claimant) was

¶61

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:16101 MFA No. 8995 of 2018

¶62

travelling by a two-wheeler (pillion rider)’. The vehicle involved in the accident shown is Tata ACE Mini Goods vehicle. In these circumstances, the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence documentary as well as oral lead by the insurance company and in an erroneous manner fastened the liability on the insurance company.

¶63

So far as the delay in lodging the complaint, the husband of the injured in the complainant has clearly stated the reasons for the delay in reporting the accident to the Police, that there was no one to look after his wife in the Hospital. Considering the injuries suffered by the claimant there must be an attendant to look after the day to day affairs for initial days. The explanation offered by the complainant for reporting the crime after four days in all probabilities seems to be reasonable and this Court finds there is no deliberate act in waiting to report the complaint for four days, but for the reasons stated supra the delay has occurred. So far as mentioning of the number in the wound certificate, this Court fails to

¶64

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:16101 MFA No. 8995 of 2018

¶65

understand that the learned counsel has not placed any rule or provision of the MV Act, which contemplates that the number of the vehicle which caused the accident required to be mentioned in the Wound Certificate or MLC register.

¶66

Generally, it is only the narration of the incident as a road traffic accident is mentioned in MLC and Wound Certificate. Though a plea of stating that the accident caused is shown as by a truck, this goes without saying that the claimant, as well as her husband are villagers and the vehicle which was involved in the accident is a mini goods vehicle terming the goods vehicle as mini truck or a truck is of no consequence to hold that the vehicle is not involved in the accident.

¶67

The insurance company cross-examined PW-1 to PW-3, however nothing worth is extracted to disbelieve the case of the claimant. Though the insurance company

¶68

lead evidence of its officer to support his contention before the Tribunal, but in the cross-examination there is a clear

¶69

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:16101 MFA No. 8995 of 2018

¶70

admission that he has no personal information regarding the accident, he is deposing on the basis of the documents and he has not seen all the documents and the vehicle is having a valid and existing insurance policy. They have received a notice from the Police regarding the vehicle and he also admits regarding the IMA report. More importantly, the RW-1 in his cross-examination has admitted that the driver of the offending vehicle pleaded his guilt before the concerned JMFC Court and paid the fine. He further admits that they have conducted a parallel investigation and got the report, however, not produced the report before the Tribunal. In these circumstances, the defense of the insurance company regarding delay, as well as non-involvement of the vehicle does not hold any water.

¶71

It is germane to mention in the IMA report, the Motor Vehicle Inspector has clearly stated that there is some damage on to the front right side bumper of the offending vehicle. As per the complaint, the accident

¶72

11 -

¶73

NC: 2025:KHC:16101 MFA No. 8995 of 2018

¶74

occurred near the vicinity of the village there are several houses and the person who gathered after the accident held the vehicle involved in the accident along with the driver. All this manifestly, shows that the vehicle belonging to respondent No.1 was involved in the accident. The Tribunal while answering issue No.1 and 2 has given a finding that the accident had occurred purely because of the driver of the offending vehicle.

¶75

In view of the above reasons, I find no infirmity committed by the Tribunal in fastening the liability on the insurance company. Accordingly, first point for consideration framed supra is answered in favour of the claimant and against the insurance company.

¶76

So far as the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, considering the injuries suffered, the treatment taken, the disability considered by the Tribunal in the presence of the evidence of the Doctor, and looking to the compensation awarded under each head, this Court feels no interference required

¶77

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:16101 MFA No. 8995 of 2018

¶78

in the quantum of compensation. The Tribunal has properly considered the case of the respondent no.1 / claimant on appreciating the material on record. In view of the same, the second point for consideration is answered in favour of the claimant and against the insurance company.

¶79

For the reasons stated supra, the appeal sans merit accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶80

ORDER

¶81

i) The appeal is Dismissed , confirming the judgment and award dated 26.06.2018, in MVC.No.2732/2016, passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCC-13).

¶82

ii) The entire amount in deposit before this Court shall be transferred forthwith to the concerned Tribunal for disbursement.

¶83

13 -

¶84

NC: 2025:KHC:16101 MFA No. 8995 of 2018

¶85

iii) The balance amount along with the accrued interest at 6% per annum as per the award of the Tribunal, shall be deposited by the insurance company within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶86

iv) No order as to cost.

¶87

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶88

JJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Shubha @ Shobha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Shubha @ Shobha

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 S Shankarappa Vs Sri Girish B

The Divisional Manager Vs Manjunatha

Sri Ramanna T M Vs the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Soni Yadav

M/S Royal Sundaram General Vs Smt Sujatha

Sri Malleshwara Reddy Vs the Regional Manager