Karnataka High Court
National Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt K S Yeshodamma W/O. Late M Srinivasa ... on 10 August, 2012
Author: N.K.Patil
Bench: N.K. Patil
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2012,
: BEFORE :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. PATIL
M.F.A.NO. 1381 OF 2009 (MV)
Between:
National Insurance Co., Ltd.,
Near Doomlight Circle, Kolar.
Appellant is rep. herein by:
The Administrative Officer,
National Insurance Co., Ltd.,
Bangalore Regional Office,
Subharam Complex,
144, Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Bangalore-1.
... Appellant
(By Kum. M.Deepa, for Lexplexus)
And:
1. Smt. K.S. Yeshodamma,
W/o. Late M.Srinivasa Gowda,
Aged about 27 years.
2. Miss Swathi,
D/o. Late M.Srinivasa Gowda,
Minor,
Rep. by her mother and natural guardian,
Smt. Yeshodhamma.
3. Master Swaroop,
S/o. Late M.Srinivasa Gowda,
Minor,
Rep. by his mother and
Natural guardian,
Smt. Yeshodhamma.
2
4. Smt. Seemakka,
W/o. Late Munivenkatappa,
Aged about 61 years.
Respondents 1, 2, 3 & 4 are
All R/at. Matnahalli village,
Sugatur Hobli,
Kolar Taluk & District.
5. Sri. M.H.Sonne Gowda,
S/o. Hanumanthe Gowda,
Aged not known,
Owner of Tractor & Trailer,
R/at. Matnahalli Village,
Sugatur Hobli,
Kolar Taluk & District.
... Respondents
(By Smt. Akkamahadevi Hiremath, Advocate for R1 to R3;
Shri. G.M. Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate for R4;
Shri. M.V.Nanjunda Gowda, Advocate for R5)
****
This MFA is filed U/S 173(1) of MV Act, against the
Judgment and Award dated: 04/10/2008 passed in MVC
No.788/2002 on the file of the II Additional Civil
Judge(Sr.Dn), Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kolar,
awarding a compensation of `4,30,000/-with the interest at
the rate of 6% P.A. from the date of the petition, till
realisation.
This MFA coming on for Hearing, this day, the Court
delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the Insurer is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 4th October 2008, passed in MVC No.788/2002, by the II Additional Civil Judge(Sr.Dn), Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kolar, 3 (for short, 'Tribunal'), for setting aside the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal.
2. The facts in brief are that, claimant No.1 is the wife, claimant Nos.2 and 3 are the minor children and claimant No.4 is the mother of the deceased late M. Srinivasa Gowda. They filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the driver, owner and insurer of the offending tractor and tralier, contending that, the deceased met with a road traffic accident, at about 2:30 P.M, on 06-08-1999, when he was travelling in a Tractor Trailer carrying paddy for milling purpose and returning to the village after finishing the milling work, due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the said Tractor Trailer, at Dinnur and Aleri village in Chitnahalli. Due to the impact, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and was immediately shifted to Devaraj Urs Medical College Hospital and died on the same day.
3. It is the case of the appellant Insurer that the Tribunal grossly erred in directing the insurer to 4 indemnify the award amount and the said direction cannot be sustained for the reason that the claimants have not established that the deceased was working a coolie in the said tractor and trailer. The deceased is stated to be carrying paddy for milling purpose and therefore, it cannot be considered that he was working as a coolie. It is their further case that, moreover the claimants have not produced any credible documents to show that the deceased was in fact, working as coolie under the employment of second respondent in the claim petition, i.e. the owner of the tractor and tralier. This aspect of the matter has not been looked into nor considered nor appreciated by Tribunal and straightway directed the insurer to indemnify the award amount on the ground that as on the date of accident, the insurance policy was in force. Therefore, learned counsel appearing for Insurer vehemently submits that the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal is liable to be set aside.
5
4. As against this, learned counsel appearing for claimants inter alia, contended and substantiated the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, stating that the same passed after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and hence, interference in the same is uncalled for.
5. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for both parities and after re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, the only point that arise for my consideration in this appeal is, Whether the Tribunal is justified in directing the Insurer to indemnify the award passed by it?
After going through the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, threadbare, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal is highly justified in directing the insurer to indemnify the award amount for the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident. The Tribunal, at paragraph 11 of its judgment, has recorded a specific 6 finding of fact with reference to documentary evidence at Ex.P1- FIR, Ex.P2- charge sheet, Ex.P3- Mahazar, Ex.P4- IMV report and Ex.P5 - Post Mortem report that the deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident caused by the tractor trailer which was insured with the appellant Insurer and that the insurance policy was very much in force, as on the date of accident. Further, it can be seen that the owner of the tractor and tralier has specifically deposed that he engaged the services of the deceased as coolie and the authorized officer of the appellant Insurer has not elicited any worthwhile in the cross of examination of the said witness. Further, the Tribunal has specifically recorded a finding of fact that it is the case of the insurer that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid driving licence to drive both tractor and tralier. However, on perusal of Ex.P2, the charge sheet reveals that the driver is not charge sheeted for the offence of not holding the valid driving licence to drive the tractor and trailer. Further, the Tribunal at 7 paragraph 15 of its judgment has specifically observed that the contention of the Insurer that the trailer is a goods vehicle and therefore it is not liable to pay the compensation as deceased was travelling as a passenger of the goods vehicle cannot be accepted for the reason that it has paid the compensation under Workman Compensation Act to PW2, involved in the same accident and hence, it is clear that the deceased was not a passenger in the tractor trailer and more over the tractor and trailer cannot be construed as a goods vehicle and therefore, the insurer is liable to indemnify the compensation. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the insurer to satisfy the award amount. After going through the findings and reasoning given by the Tribunal, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal, after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, has rightly directed the appellant Insurer to indemnify the award passed by it and I do not find any illegality as such committed by Tribunal in directing so. Therefore, interference in the 8 impugned well considered judgment is not called for nor the appellant has made out a good ground to interfere with the same. Hence, the appeal filed by appellant is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
The amount, if any, in deposit by the Insurer shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal, forthwith.
Office to draw the award, accordingly.
SD/-
JUDGE BMV*