Naitonal Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Master Shaik Suhail Ahmed

MASTER SHAIK SUHAIL AHMED S/O SHAIK ALLA BAKASH, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, NO. 216,. ADITHYANAGAR, 1ST PHASE, CHIKKABETTAHALLI, VIDYARANYAPURA POST, BENGALURU - 560 097, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY ITS FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SHAIK ALLA BAKASH S/O SHAIK MUSTAFFA.

¶18

T. VEERESH ADULT, NO. 18, RAJKUMAR CIRCLE, GORAGUNTEPALYA,

¶19

2 -

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:38058 MFA No. 9555 of 2015

¶22

CNR: KAHC010493482015

¶23

BENGALURU - 560 048.

¶24

SHAIK MOHAMMED FAFI S/O SHAIK MUSTAFF, ADULT, NO. 216, ADITYANAGAR,

¶25

CHIKKABETTAHALLI , BENGALURU.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. KALYAN R, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R3 SERVED AND UNREPRESNTED; VIDE ORDER DATED 12.07.2019, NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶28

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.08.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.5686/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 12TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.2,61,321/- WITH INTEREST AT 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF THE CLAIM PETITION TILL THE REALISATION.

¶29

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

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶31

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶32

Learned counsel for the appellant is present.

¶33

Learned counsel for respondent No.1 is absent.

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:38058 MFA No. 9555 of 2015

¶36

3 -

¶37

CNR: KAHC010493482015

¶38

This appeal is filed by the appellant/Insurance Company under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 24.08.2015 passed in MVC No.5686/2013 on the file of the XII Additional Small Causes Judge and Member, MACT, Bengaluru.

¶39

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant. The ranks of the parties are retained as per Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

¶40

The petitioner/injured is a minor aged 9 years, at

¶41

the time of accident and is represented by his father as a natural guardian. The petitioner/injured met with an accident on 11.08.2013 at about 9.00 p.m., and his father as a natural guardian filed petition before the Tribunal for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.2,61,321/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶42

Aggrieved by the said order, the insurance company

¶43

preferred this appeal and mainly contended that the father of

¶44

4 -

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:38058 MFA No. 9555 of 2015

¶47

CNR: KAHC010493482015

¶48

the petitioner/injured stated that, his son was playing in front of his house and the rider of the bike dashed against his son. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries. But in the medical records, the history of the accident is shown that the petitioner/injured was hit by a bike while crossing the road. In the MLC record of Aveksha Hospital, the claimant was first admitted to KK Hospital and then he brought to the Aveksha hospital. But both the hospitals have not registered case under MLC. The accident occurred on 11.08.2013 at about 09.00 p.m., and the petitioner/injured was taken to the Aveksha Hospital on 12.08.2013 at 12.15 a.m. In the hospital records it is stated that the petitioner/injured was brought to the hospital by his uncle i.e., owner of the offending vehicle. The injured is related to the insured. Therefore, the vehicle is falsely implicated. In the cross-examination, father of the claimant stated that he had taken his son to the hospital immediately after the accident and the owner of the vehicle is not related to him. The doctor of KK Hospital stated that the petitioner/injured was not admitted in his hospital. Therefore,

¶49

5 -

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC:38058 MFA No. 9555 of 2015

¶52

CNR: KAHC010493482015

¶53

requested the Court to set aside the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

¶54

A perusal of the record shows that on 11.08.2013, at about 9:00 p.m., while the petitioner/injured was playing in front of his house, the rider of the motorcycle came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries. Immediately he was shifted to K.K. Hospital for first aid and later on he was shifted to Aveksha Hospital for further treatment. The appellant–Insurance Company has raised several grounds in the present appeal, which are not mentioned in its written statement before the Tribunal at the earliest point of time. The Tribunal rightly considered all the aspects and held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle. The Tribunal further stated that the insurance policy was in force as on the date of the accident. As such, directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation of Rs.2,61,321/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the petition till realization. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

NC: 2026:KHC:38058 MFA No. 9555 of 2015

¶57

6 -

¶58

CNR: KAHC010493482015

¶59

interfere with the said order. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the award of the Tribunal .

¶60

The appellant/Insurance Company has already deposited the award amount. The claimant is permitted to withdraw the same along with interest accrued on it.

¶61

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶62

AMA

¶63

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

Naitonal Insurance Company Ltd. v. Master Shaik Suhail Ahmed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naitonal Insurance Company Ltd. v. Master Shaik Suhail Ahmed

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

Girish Vs Nandini

Legal Manager Vs Shantanakumar @ Girishantha

Shivashankar Chari Vs Smt.Nagarathna

Smt. Sonali Punit Sanadi Vs Shri. Punit Sanadi

Mr. Venugopala. B. Vs Thejaswini. P

Sri Ravichandran @ Ravishankar Vs Infants Travel Pvt. Ltd.