National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Poornanda Prabhu

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., UDUPI DIVISIONAL OFFICE, UDUPI BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, M G ROAD, BANGALORE.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SMT. RENUKA H.R., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

POORNANDA PRABHU,

¶15

S/O LATE APPAYYA PRABHU, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O KADARI HOUSE, MALA VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK - 574 104.

¶16

SARVOTHAMA SALVANKAR, S/O LAXMAN NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O ARASUBETTU HOUSE, HADIYANGADY POST, SHIRLALU VILLAGE,

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:33181 MFA No. 4848 of 2015

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

KARKALA TALUK - 574 104.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. K. CHANDRANATH ARIGA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI.LAKSHMIKANTH M., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶23

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.6.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.245/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT, KARKALA, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.2,39,197/- WITH INTEREST ON RS.2,14,197/- @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

The appellant-Insurance Company has filed this appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award passed in MVC No. 245/2010 dated 25.6.2012 by the Senior Civil Judge and Addl.MACT, Karkala, awarding compensation to the claimant on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident dated 16.8.2009.

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:33181 MFA No. 4848 of 2015

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

The Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.2,39,197/-

¶31

with interest on Rs.2,14,197/- at 6 % p.a., from the date of petition till realization from respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the Insurance Company has preferred the appeal mainly contending that the accident occurred on 16.08.2009, the complaint was lodged on 20.08.2009 and the reasons for the delay in lodging the complaint is not explained properly.

¶32

It is further contended that the injured was first taken in a car to Spandana Hospital, Karkala, but the letter issued by Spandana Hospital discloses that he was not treated in the said Spandana Hospital as an outpatient. The mahazar which was drawn on 21.08.2009 reveals that the bike which caused the accident was still lying in the same place where the accident took place and IMV report discloses that there was no damage caused to the bike and there was no mechanical defect and hence, it cannot be believed that the bike was left at the place of accident for a period of five days without drawing the

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:33181 MFA No. 4848 of 2015

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

mahazar. After Spandana hospital, claimant was shifted to Manipal Hospital and thereafter, the complaint was given and therefore, he requested to set aside the order of the Tribunal.

¶37

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent.

¶38

The delay of four days in lodging the complaint is not abnormal. Admittedly, claimant met with an accident and sustained injuries and he has stayed in the hospital, as such, the delay is not fatal to the case. The Tribunal rightly considered all the aspects and granted a reasonable compensation. This Court finds no merits in the appeal.

¶39