M/S Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Sri Chalapathi K M

M/S SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., S & S CORNER BUILDING, HOSPITAL ROAD, SHIVAJINAGAR, BANGALORE, NOW REP. BY ITS MANAGER M/S SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.5/4, 3^RD FLOOR, S V ARCADE, BILAKAHALLI MAIN ROAD OFF BG ROAD, IIM POST BANGALORE-560 076.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. B. PRADEEP., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SRI CHALAPATHI K M S/O MUNISWAMY C AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS Digitally signed by PADMASHREE R/AT NO.02, KARIYAPPA VILLAGE SHEKHAR DESAI KAGATHI POST, CHINTHAMANI TALUK Location: High CHIKKABALLAPURA DIST. Court of Karnataka 2. SRI RIZWAN PASHA G

¶14

SRI RIZWAN PASHA G S/O GULZAR PASHA, MAJOR R/AT 4^TH CROSS, SHAHINSA NAGAR, KOLAR TOWN AND DISTRICT, (R.C.OWNER OF TATA ACE REG NO AP-02-V-9380)

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED V/O DTD:17.04.2025)

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:35542 MFA No. 6982 of 2018

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05/06/2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.3444/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXXII ACMM., MEMBER, MACT-3, BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.3,77,800/WITH INTEREST AT 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

¶20

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal is filed by the appellant/Insurance Company under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to set aside the judgment and award dated 05.06.2018, passed in MVC No.3444/2016, on the file of the VII Addl. Small Causes Judge and XXXII ACMM., Member, MACT-3, Bengaluru.

¶23

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for

¶24

the appellant. The ranks of the parties are retained as per tribunal for the sake of convenience.

¶25

Injured claimant met with an accident on 02.10.2014, and filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.5 lakhs. The Tribunal considering entire evidence on

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:35542 MFA No. 6982 of 2018

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

record granted an amount of Rs. Rs.3,77,800/- at the rate

¶29

of 8% per annum from the date of petition till deposit.

¶30

Aggrieved by the said order, Insurance Company filed this appeal and contended that on 02.10.2014, while he was proceeding as pedestrian at extreme left side of Chinthamani – Chelur road, and reached in front of Thowdu Appala Petrol bund, at that time driver of Tata Ace bearing Reg.No.AP-02-V-9380 came from behind in a rash and negligent manner and dashed him, as a result petitioner sustained injury. He was shifted to R.L. Jalappa Hospital and was admitted as an inpatient.

¶31

It is mainly contended that the Insured TATA Ace vehicle was not involved in the accident, but it was implicated in order to gain wrongful benefit. But the tribunal failed to appreciate the facts properly and directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation. Accident occurred on 02.10.2024, but the complaint was given on 24.10.2014. As per the MLC, he was not a

¶32

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:35542 MFA No. 6982 of 2018

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

pedestrian and in the MLC record, it was stated that while he was proceeding in a two wheeler he was hit by a 4 wheeler. PW2 doctor also admitted that in the medical records and complaint, it was mentioned that the claimant was under the influence of alcohol. Thus, requested the

¶35

court to set aside the order of the trial court.

¶36

Admittedly, the injured claimant met an accident on 02.10.2014 but gave complaint after 22 days. But the tribunal relied upon the citation reported in 2011 ACJ 2011 in case of Ravi Vs Badrinarayana in which petitioner stated that he was alone looking after his son in the hospital and there was nobody to look after them and as such there was delay in filing the complaint. Tribunal further observed in Ex.R2/MLC extract, which disclosed description of injuries as follows, “ patient attender gives alleged history of RTA when patient was riding 2 wheeler and got hit by Tata Ace Car (4 wheeler) at

¶37

12.30 at Chintamani Petrol Bunk, Chelur Road on

¶38

02.10.2014”.

¶39

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:35542 MFA No. 6982 of 2018

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Insurance Company filed Ex.R1/copy of the policy and also Ex.R2/MLC extract and stated that as per the said endorsement, he was travelling on two wheeler but after 22 days, he falsely implicated TATA Ace vehicle and stated that he was a pedestrian. But the tribunal has not believed

¶42

the version that TATA Ace vehicle was subsequently implicated on the ground, that in the complaint itself they have given the number of the vehicle and stated that the driver of the vehicle dashed him from behind, while he was a pedestrian. Further, stated that RW1 is not an eye witness. It is for the petitioner to prove the manner of accident before the tribunal. But he has not examined any eye witness to prove his contention. When he met with an accident, on 02.10.2014 immediately he was admitted in the hospital. In the MLC extract his attender gave an information that the petitioner was riding a two wheeler and hit by a four wheeler. The number of the TATA ACE car is also not mentioned in the said information. After 22 days, the manner of accident was twisted and Tata ACE

¶43

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:35542 MFA No. 6982 of 2018

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

car bearing number AP-02-V-9380 which was having insurance is implicated to gain wrongfully. The trial court erred in appreciating the facts properly and granted compensation, ignoring the fact that it is a case of false implication of the vehicle. Therefore, the order of the trial

¶46

court is to be set a side . PW2 doctor belonging to the same hospital was also examined before the court and he himself admitted the endorsement in the MLC extract.

¶47

Therefore, appeal is allowed and the order of the trial court is hereby set aside.

¶48

Insurance company have deposited 50% of the

¶49

compensation and the said amount is to be refunded to the company.

¶50

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶51

AKV CT:NR, List No.: 2 Sl No.: 34

M/S Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sri Chalapathi K M

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sri Chalapathi K M

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Ghouse Peer Vs Smt. Tahera Banu

Smt. Sharmila Ramesh Vs Sri Subramanya R Jois

National Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Sri Javaraiah

Mr. v R Kumar Vs Mrs. Rajeshwari Somasundaram

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri Sushanth

Hanumaiah Vs Nagendra Swamy R