Karnataka High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs Ningamma W/O. Ningaiah on 23 January, 2012
Author: Jawad Rahim
Bench: Jawad Rahim
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
RD
23
DATED THIS THE DAY OF JANUARY 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE JAWAD RAHIM
292 2012 GM-CPC
BETWEEN:
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
PARVATHINAGAR, BELLARY,
REPTED. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.
PETITIONER
(By Smt. VEENA HEGDE, ADV.)
AND
1. NINGAMMA W/O. NINGAIAH
AGE: 45 YEARS, 0CC: COOLIE
2. CHENNAPPA S/0. NINGAIAH
AGE: 19 YEARS, 0CC: STUDENT,
3. KRISHNAMURTHY 5/0. NINGAIAH
AGE: 18 YEARS, 0CC: STUDENT,
4. RAMAMURTHY 5/0, NINGAIAH
AGE: 17 YEARS, 0CC: STUDENT,
5, NIRMALA D/O. NINGAIAH
AGE: 15 YEARS, 0CC: STUDENT,
ALL R/0. SAN KIAPURA VILLAGE,
TQ: KUDLIGI, DIST: BELLARY.
U
2
6. G. RAVIKUMAR Sb. GOVINDA NAIK
AGE: 30 YEARS, 0CC: DRIVER,
RIO. BARAMASAGAR VILLAGE,
LAMBANI HAUl, TQ: CHALLAKERE
DIST: CHITRADURGA.
7. J.R. RAVIKUMAR S/0. T.M. RAJASHEKHARAPPA
AGE: 38 YEARS, 0CC: R.C. HOLDER
RIO. MAHADEVI EXPRESS,
NAYAKANAHAUI VILLAGE,
TQ: CHALLAKERE,
DIST: CHITRADURGA.
RESPONDENTS
THIS W.P. IS FILED PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
ON I.A.N0.7 DATED:13/10/2011 PASSED IN MVC.
NO.1153/2009 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE
(SR.DN.) ANó MACr, BELLARY AS PER ANNEXURE-F.
This petition coming on for preliminary hearing this
day, the court made the following
ORDER
Insurer of the vehicle involved in a road traffic accident on 12.3.2009 is in writ action to quash the order dated 13.10.2011 in MVC.1153/09 passed on an application filed under Order XVI Rule 1, C.P.. declining to summon a witness named therein.
2. The grievance of the petitioner Is, a suspicion had arisen that a criminal case involving the vehicle bearing No.KA-16/A-2718 has been foisted to make unlawful gain, and therefore, the company applied under the Right to Information Act to the medical officer to furnish details of the post mortem report on the dead body of Ningaiah.
3. In response to it, the medical officer has sent information furnishing all material particulars of the date and time when he conducted autopsy on the dead body of Ningaiah under requisition of the Station House Officer of G.Kote police station in Crime No.12/09 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304A, LP.C. However, in the said report, he mentioned he is not able to issue particulars of the post mortem report as after conducting autopsy, the report was collected by the investigating officer.
4. The insurance company felt there was concoction of the post mortem report at the behest of certain vested elements. The Tribunal while considering the application, noticed that the post mortem report has already been marked in evidence through the claimants who were subjected to thorough cross-examination. He has further
4. 4 noticed that the question raised is not about death of the victim , but about registration and non-registration of post mortem in the post mortem register. Thus he declined to summon the witness, i.e. medical officer. -
5. The petitioner, therefore, seeks to quash the said order with a direction to summon the medical officer.
6. In this regard, first of all, the petitioner seems to have ignored the fact that report of post mortem by medical experts could be received in evidence in any proceedings without the author being summoned in person. It is one such case where in a summary proceeding, post mortem has been received as is permissible in law. There is no grievance of the petitioner that the doctor had connived with one nor there is any allegation of any nature regarding the death of the victim. In this fact situation, the attempt made by the insurance company to summon the doctor is of no avail because the doctor could not have spoken to any other fact except that he had conducted autopsy. (Ii'
7. Rightly the Tribunal has rejected the application. I find no merit in the petition, it is rejected.
Sd,..
S