Karnataka High Court
The National Insurance Co.Ltd vs Mahammaed Salauddin Alias Mahammed ... on 19 August, 2020
Author: S.R. Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R. Krishna Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF AUGUST 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR
WP NOs.106995-106996 OF 2018 (GM-AC)
BETWEEN
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD,
1ST FLOOR,KOTHA CHERUVU COMPLEX,
ABOCE BANK OF INDIA,STATION ROAD,HOSAPETE,
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED,
SIGNATORY. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S ARANI, ADV.)
AND
1. MAHAMMAED SALAUDDIN ALIAS MAHAMMED SAIFUDDIN
S/O. MAHAMMED KAREEMUDDIN,
SINCE MINOR REP BY MOTHER SMT SAHEEN BEGUM WIFE OF
MOHAMMED KAREEMUDDIN,
AGE ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/O. NEAR OLD POLICE STATION MUNIRABAD,
NOW RESIDING AT NEAR KEB CIRLCE KUMARSWAMY
ROAD,SANDUR.
2. BHIMAPPA S/O PAMPAPPA
R/O. INFRONT OF ANJINEYA TRMPLE,
DEVALAPURAMN MARIYAMMANAHALLI POST,
HOSAPETE TALUKA:BALLARI DISTRICT.
3. Y NAGARAJ S/O. Y SANGANNA
R/O. PARVATHI SANGAMESHWARA NILAYA,
8TH CROSS,M J NAGAR,
HOSAPETE. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S M KALWAD, ADV. FOR R1;
NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NOS. 2 AND 3 SERVED.)
THESE WPS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER
DATED:25.08.2018 ON IA NOS.8 & 9 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
KUDLIGI SITTING AT SANDUR IN MVC 303/17 ANNEXURE-"G" AS
ILLEGAL AND ERRONEOUS.
2
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. These petitions by the Insurance Company is directed against the impugned common order on I.A.Nos.8 and 9 dated 25.08.2018 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Kudligi Sitting at Sandur (for short the Tribunal) in MVC 303/17 whereby the said applications filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the trial Court.
2. The respondent No.1 having filed the claim petition seeking compensation towards injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident that occurred on 29.01.2017, the petitioner/Insurance Company contested the claim petition on various grounds. After completion of the evidence on both sides at the stage of argument, the petitioner filed I.A.No.8 under Order 16 Rule 6 and 7 R/w. Section 151 of CPC seeking issuance of summons to the persons mentioned in the application to produce documents and to give evidence so also petitioner filed 3 I.A.No.9 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking reference of the documents mentioned in the schedule thereto to render expert opinion and to submit their report insofar as alleged disability of the claimant is concerned.
3. The claimant having opposed the applications, the trial Court passed the impugned orders rejecting both the applications. Aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company is before this Court by way of the present petitions.
4. Insofar as rejection of I.A.No.9 filed under Section 45 of the Indian evidence Act is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to the order dated 09.03.2020 passed by this Court which reads as under:
ORDER The learned counsel for the petitioner/insurance company submits that there 4 are serious doubts of the genuineness of the disability certificate issued and the nature of disability asserted on behalf of the claimant. The wound certificate discloses that the claimant suffered only simple injuries. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the endeavor of the petitioner is to ensure the best evidence placed on record so that just and reasonable compensation as required under the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act is paid. The petitioner/insurance company would also bear the cost of examination of the claimant by the Medical Board to decide on the disability as additional evidence to facilitate a decision as aforesaid.
The petitioner is directed to file necessary details in this regard on or before 16.03.2020.
Office is directed to list this petition on 16.03.2020.5
Interim order granted earlier is extended till the next date of hearing.
5. It is contended that since the petitioner/Insurance Company is ready to bear the cost of examination of the claimant by the medical board to access the disability, it is necessary that the impugned order rejecting I.A.No.9 is set aside and claimant be directed to be taken to medical board for assessment of his disability.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant submits that the claimant is in coma and not in a position to be taken to the medical board for the purpose of assessment of his disability.
7. In view of the aforesaid disputed facts and circumstances, I deem it just and proper to set aside the impugned order insofar as it relates to I.A.No.9 and direct the trial Court to reconsider I.A.No.9 afresh in accordance with law and pass suitable orders after 6 hearing both sides without being any influenced by the observations made by this Court and bearing in mind the present condition of the claimant.
8. Insofar as rejection of I.A.No.8 by the trial Court is concerned having regard to the fact that the documents sought to be summoned by the Insurance Company is in relation to alleged bills which are quantified only in a sum of Rs.15,000/- and not in respect of other heads claimed by the claimant, I am of the opinion that having regard to the value of Rs.15,000/- alleged in the said bills, this is not a fit case warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India since the impugned order rejecting I.A.No.8 cannot be said to have occassioned failure of justice.
In the result, I pass the following:
7
ORDER
i) The impugned order insofar as it relates to rejecting I.A.No.8 by the trial Court is hereby confirmed.
ii) The impugned order insofar as it relates to dismissing of I.A.No.9 by the trial Court is hereby set aside.
iii) The matter is remitted back to the trial Court to decide I.A.No.9 afresh in accordance with law after affording opportunity to both sides and without being influenced by the observations made by this Court or in the impugned order.
iv) All rival contentions between the parties are kept open.
Sd/-
JUDGE Vb/-