Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. ... vs Sri V Chandrashekar on 21 June, 2011

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. ... vs Sri V Chandrashekar on 21 June, 2011

Bench: K.Bhakthavatsala

WW

wA«vw«w»i\uxw».vNv\\¢\h&t\W&!\\9lY€1M9X¥\

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Secfsien'VEi;_}'3{:i'}..gof

the Motor vehicles Act; 1988, against the judgment ainig aw.a'r-oiildaiteid 
28.12099 passed in MVC l\ie.?150f2€}O6 Cr_l_7'l....l:l"i__E3 file"of"jeiogié/l\-'i'eVmxhVer,»_ 
MACT, Bangalore, awarding compensation 'with-..ri_nt.erest: 
at 8@ per annum from the date ofgVPetitio__n1'til.l deoesi't'l e>i<ee'ot"on

future medical expenses.

This Appeal coming on fo--r...hearin'g  the'Cfotirt delivered

the following:

The appeliani:!jl"ns:tii;;aV.nee  before this Court praying
that the impugfnieifi elated 281.2009 made in
MVC No.?150/2t)'0§: on  of Small Causes/Addl. MACT at
Bangalore Citgy, maiyéiibejiiset.,asi{;leV.i'"

  the case leading to the filing of the Appeal

 apoeliant/l_nsVa'irannce Company may be stated as under:

n_;P{e_sponclent No.1/tlaimant filed a Claim petition

 __gnder;SeCtion 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act; 1988; pleading

"'VV"----.._tiiat""on 109.2006 at about 12.00 neen when he was

 proceeding on is motor cycle bearing registration No.i<A 41

E 1153 from east te west direction en MG Reacl slowiy,



_ ..,..._Wmw..Mwmxmwwmmm

cautieusiy and maintaining iane discipiine; a Car bearing

registration No,KA 03 MF 5675 came from behim':i~..:a'r}VCi',,'4
dashed against the meter cycie, as a resuit of  i-
down and sustained grievous injuries,__'i*4he  
admitted to Maiya Hospital at Ban'gaic:g're..:";£tft.er~'

treatment was given, he was adenitted ts'-ViittcriaiviiiaispittaIiat

Bangaiore. Ciaim petition  -a_ga'inst:_t>ﬁwnver and
insurer of the Car in que.st'fQn"_ﬁclaii:ning..iA't:on1pensation of
26,00,000/~. On service of n.«:>ti_c:e, ir.esipo'n'd..e;ntI._tie.1/owner of
the vehicle  Advocate Sri K
Krishnappa.   Company entered
appearance  an Advocate, Sri S
Krishna Kisvilimxre-.Respe:ndieht:_:"'Na';1/owner of the vehicie did

not fiie wri_tten staVtem.ent['~.

  _lt"  tii*ii3}'t.the instirer of the vehicle in question filed

wriitteirt'Vstatevrh"eht.eenying the averments ef the Ciaim

Vin"""vpetiti<5r;..":_anei.-  for dismissal of the same. it is aiso
,.i'.j'jV»-veer:-tended'.that as per the information coiiected by the
  Company; the ciaimant was braught te Maiya
.  'i~+'ta:V'sHV;'3_i'iEai at 11.45 p m with a history of fail from two wheeler

 LEC building at MG road, X~ray reveaiea fracture. it is



/Wm



4

further stated that the ciaimant was not wiiiing for

admission and MLC. One H N Manjappa, brother-in~ia\i§%._'of_V

the petitioner, signed the history sheet bearing_;"HospitjaVi

No.371366. The time of accident is not matching. xv'

document to another document and the cgaosje of 'aAcc.id'e.nti'is__gt'

aiso not mentioned properly. Therefore,y_ it is covn.'tend'ed'i':a"'i

case of self faii is manipulated with'i»a"x:iew to~m°ai<e wﬁtongfol
gain by creating non--existent_ iiahiiityci-against theviinsvurance

Company with the active conn'ii\1_an,ce of .t«hieri?VoI__i'(.:e.

The Tripunaéi   In support of
the case oft_he"vcVia*irh;a_nt,   examined as P.W1
besides e5:Vamining'--".D~n'BgR~aEn.esh[as P.W2 and got marked

Exs.P1 to  -  Insurance Company has

vexamined"its Assi»s.ta'n't Manager (Claims)/Mr. Ravichandra

  PSi,Was R.Ws.1 and 2, respectively, and

got'gni.iari&edf'=copy:fof insurance poiicy, outpatient record,

i Vvicopy of ii/i'§;"i' report as Exs.R1 to R3' The Tribunal; after

"--«.,:.",4'"i*1£§3£:i!fii"iigf ai*goments, perusing evidence and materiai on

"recs:>i'd., answered issue No.1 on the point of negiigence in

it':'the___§affirrnative and aiiowed the ciairn petition partiy

"VA"'--rewarding compensation of %98y.69G/~ aiong with costs and

E





interest at the rate of 8% per ennurn from the date of

Petition tiii realization. This is impugned in this Appeal,' 

3. Learned Counsel for the appeiiant/lnsurance_ sularnitgi 

that the vehicle in question did not invohre the V

contention taken by the lnsurance_Com'eersy isg,s'--L:.opo'rte:diwithg

Hospital document at Ex.R2. it is alseicentended'A"*th:af"'l:;nqeV aileged
accident occurred on 10.9.2006 and  be lodged on
14.9.2006 implicating the vehicle-in .'A.'.:i'?,'t;_r_ther, on the very
same day; spot maha§ze'r.;VafgZl1d   hypothetically and
the Tribunal erred   given by the injured
claimant and  and allowing the claim
petition, Thereitere', he  irnpugned judgment and award
may be set aside. i it it 

 l_Viearnevd4"{:otiinsei for respondent No.1/claimant submits that

Ijtheyre is rte rnerit'irijthgevicontentions urged by the learned Counsel for appellaintftnsuratnce Company He submits that the injured c:ie.irna_ntiwas eﬁtamined as PiW1 and the Poiice papers viz., HR, Vi"sniahe2:ar;--si}:et<:h;, wound certificate, Mv! report and charge sheet have been--.nfia_r?i<ed as Exs.P1 to P6 and the insurance Company utteriy \iita'ii'ed:.te prove their eententiens that the Claimant foisted a false case 3 i i _, +.....sa.«~»/M 6 against the vehicle in question and the evidence of R.Ws.1 of no avail to the case of the appeliantflhsurance Compa'h'y*il~.'a:-ed:

Tribunal has rightly answered issue No.1 on the poin-trim'. favour of the ciaimant and there is no impugned judgment. He prays for dismi-s___saI V

5. Perused the LCR. V V l

6. According to the 'occurred on 10.9.2006 at about 12.00.noonigand_5{!.G."VRo.ad'.«'ahtV;the'V"'junction of Am! Kumble Circle at '__.As::'*oe€:f_ FlR, complaint was lodged by the clainta.ht7.4'o:'}ﬂ1.Zl§ the spot panchnama conducted on p m and 1.30 pm. Ex.P3 is the rough sltetchlof crime. Ex.P4 is the wound certificate issued byauVahaya'ka."-HospitaI, Bangalore. According to the wou'hVd.i'certificat»e; h'listory ivralséythat RTA on 10.9.2006 at 11.30 am.

_The clallimaotllwags»-.exat:§ih.ed in the said Hospital on 10.9.2006 at 3.00 Ex.P5l is Mo,tot§;elVhic!es Accident Report in respect of the motor ..«*c3.--?«%jiVe«._o'f~».the cia.iVr_oant. Ex.P6 is the charge sheet filed before the ill was registered as C C No.3876,:'2GO§ for the uhﬁdet Sections 279, 338 of! P C and Section 134(b) r/w 187 of VV'"--l._'ihi$€l_'oto;;;"\fehicles Act. Ex.P12 is the certified copy of the plea of the 2* :

E no material placed on record to Show the seizure of C'a'rCt3eavvring registration No.l<A 03 MF 5675 and examination of ti'-l_s.4e:"4_ Motor Vehicles inspector. in my view, viticannot: 'the'; evidence avaiiable on record is sufficient-to th-at proved issue No.1 Hence, it is a fitijcase toils-at judgment and award and remand the for fresh disposal on the point of negiigeoce_.' 'i-it that there is no dispute about the quanttim of by the Tribunal. if the Tribunal wereétov in the affirmative in favour of the ciaimai524.tV,;f¥"re's;iiohcl.etit:':"NoV.t§i;iciaimant is entitled for compensation i:;§f"'~the.Tf'riti'unal. it is made clear that none of the obse'r'2(_a'tionsl.nia:de:_iii.:_th«isjudgment shall come in the way of the Tribunal -.w_hileu'dil.sposing."thie. case afresh. ln_~'t'he__i'e$Uii;lA"th€3_____Avppeal is allowed and the impugned iudgintentieie-»nd aA_war'd}'da_ted 28112009 passed in MVC No.?150;'2006 the MACT, Bangaiore, are set aside and the rr1atte--r is re'i'nit'te.d"'hack to the Tribunal with a direction to afford o4opio4rt:;.in;ttyi_to the parties to adduce further evidence on the point of it"tVf_negii'§_ien'c_e"'a*rid dispose off the case, afresh, in accordance with law fight of the observations made above. No costs. § Lt For the purpose of cenvenience, the parties are directed to appear before the Trébunai for further proceedings on 38.2011 without: notice.

The Registry is directed to refund the amount. 1:)" 'the' appellant.

Bjs

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court