Karnataka High Court
New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Jegadeesh Reddy S/O Krishna Reddy on 12 March, 2009
Author: V.Jagannathan
Bench: V.Jagannathan
gave the history of the accident before the éoctor further the delay in lodgng the comp1aiI1t_§;1a$A"' been expiairzeci in the complaint V' above circumstances, the fmdiiig of T: T the ciaimant was tha pi11ir:)11__.I*:idt=ii*A_V§,f1 thetvsjhiple 'A question is a proper ftnding "I;1("},.vv:i.KIifl.:C€iI'.fv'Vt:3I'6I'1C{3 by this court. Hence, [=e"fiis1);1issed.
10. I1}. urged by the ccunter arguments advanicéd" ttidiniézvidarafion the e11t:i:re mate:-ta: :t1;k;e. 1:1*ibt.1:r1a.1 by both the parfies, be Vtitiat: the tribuna} was justified ' V' up t11E"'Cbdnciusion that the claimant was 'V in the vehicle driven by his own bmttaer, Raddy.
AA The: F'.i.R' is .produced at EXP: and it ' Ii;e11ti0ns that the claimant was the piilicn I'i(1$I' in '4 Hthse motor cycie ériven by his younger brother Vishwanatha Reddy and Whflfi they were taking a turn towards their ring road in Ramamurthsz Nafiar. a it we have before us is a ciifferent cup of tea and VT't"he reasens are not far to seek.
13. 'I'he1.1gh the con1p1aj1}t....1I1ent:;c:iS"
ciaimant became unconscious afier;'_'fl1e eiecidenig; 7-] the discharge summary '.153; es per Ex.P5 reveals v;.tjz1at 'Viheic' 'ewes; fully conscious and the the vehicle was driven himself.
r§:'h€ wfecix wili have a fifiat this case are as underef " ' V ' é .
~year_ gefxtleman Mr. Jagadish Ready fjfemnted to us foilewing a Road 'V Accident. This gentieman was __ in a two wheeler when he encountered a dog. He appiied ' brake and could I101: centre} the ' * vehicie and fell down.
'i'11ere was no loss of consciousness."
14. Therefore, the theery put forward by the elaimant thaf: hfibecame unceneeieus is tetalbv' 12 counsel that an attempt was made by the claimant to play a fraud upon the court and to see tI"1a,1.: _:
insurance company is made liable some haw "O15 .
other. The said inferexace is Ji;1e_scap»a"biQf '_§0:t'"-1f_i1e aforementioned reasons.
15. That the I'1oV.
er tie the legal system the Vedaifsvission made by him the 9 :1i1is;'«.(§12;':(;j~§é_'3§.exan1iI1ation that thong}; per month, he has not V consideration of the enfire all that emerges is that tl1e4{:l.é2i.rna1:£t"eu;Vjpressed the truth of the matter avoid the blame being put on him as he'..waS" vehicle in question, the eiaimant coi£veniei":'£ijr built up the story to suit his case that ths::..4_.ve§1ie1e was driven. by his younger brother _ "Vfiel.'1e:*e11ath Reedy. Therefere, the Tribunal in my Wfiriew has not applied its mind carefully to the facts and eircuxnstanees and merely because the charge- % ' 1"' 14 company Wiil have to be absolved of its liabiiity. It is the inunien on the part of the owner of A' vehicle to satiefy the award amount.
17. Before ieaving t.21is__ T constrained to observed tlmt-.___a eooy of this shall be forwarded to all the the State for guidance " faleeclaims are allowed by fltge "zoo person is allowed to me A copy of this judgmentv Commissioner of F'oiiee:':._i31 action and also to see to that?' »'eI:1ai*ge~sheet that is flied in
- aceiéfaehte eiajuineoeases reflect the true state of affairs ' t.o'eee: t;'1e.tjustiee does not suffer at the hand «pay J1: ' have no regard ,to'13w ané the Regal '.V systezrifi V AA18. At this stage, Sri Ofliahesh, learned eotmsel for the apwiIant--;insura;r1ce company also submitted that the iI1S1iI'8I1C€ company was drawn to the Court to fightfifia ease which had occasioned on \ The amount deposited by the ' company may hit refunded to at.
Qvr: