Karnataka High Court
Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Sri Diwakar Raj Urs on 5 September, 2019
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
M.F.A.No.3569/2013 [MV]
BETWEEN:
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE
BEAUTY PLAZA, BALMATTA ROAD
HAMAPANAKATTA, MANGALORE
NOW BY REGIONAL OFFICE
2ND LFOOR, SUMANGALA COMPLEX
LAMINGTON ROAD
HUBLI-580020.
(REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
SRI.BALAKRISHNA K.NAYAK)
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.M ARUN PONAPPA, ADV.)
AND:
1. SRI DIWAKAR RAJ URS
AGED 67 YEARS
S/O RAMARAJA URS
R/O BILAGULA
HESGAL POST
MUDIGERE
CHIKMANGALUR DISTRICT.
2. SRI M BABU SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
S/O LATE NARAYANA SHETTY
-2-
R/O BAJAJ NEW ROAD
MANAGALORE-04.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SRIKANTH N.V., ADV. FOR
M/S. DHARMASHREE ASSTS., ADVs. FOR R1
R2-SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
21.12.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.202/2011 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, MEMBER,
MACT, CHIKMAGALUR, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF
RS.75,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE
OF PETITION, TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The insurer is before this Court, questioning the correctness of the judgment and award dated 21.12.2012 in MVC No.202/2011 on the file of the Fast Track Court and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short).
2. The claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming damages -3- caused to Ford Icon car in a road traffic accident that occurred on 26.06.2005. The claimant is the owner of the car bearing registration No.KA-18/M-7888. On 26.06.2005, while the claimant was proceeding in the said car, driver of the tanker bearing registration No. KA-19/AB-3395 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the car causing injuries to the claimant as well as damages to the car. The claimant states that he got surveyed the damages and repaired the car at Cauvery Motors at Mysore by spending more than Rs.4,00,000/-.
3. The second respondent/insurer appeared before the Tribunal and filed its objections denying the petition averments. The insurer admitted the accident stating that the accident is due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending tanker lorry. The insurer further contended that the drivers of the car as well as the tanker did not possess the valid and effective driving -4- license as on the date of accident. The damages claimed is highly excessive and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
4. The claimant got himself examined as P.W.1 and also examined P.W.2, apart from marking the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P21. The respondent/insurer examined the Bank Manager as R.W.1 and got marked the documents as Ex.R1 to Ex.R3.
5. The Tribunal, on assessing the material on record awarded total compensation of Rs.75,000/- to the claimant towards damages to the car with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization. The insurer being aggrieved by the judgment and award is before this Court in this appeal. -5-
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent/claimant. Perused the lower court records.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurer would submit that the tanker bearing registration No.KA- 19/A-3395 was not involved in the accident. In support of this contention, learned counsel invites the attention of this Court to Ex.R3/charge sheet wherein it is stated that the accident had taken place on 14.05.2005. He further submits that the claimant has stated that the accident had taken place on 26.06.2005. Relying upon Ex.R3, it is the contention of the appellant that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident as the car involved in the accident had no insurance as on the date of accident. Subsequently, on obtaining the insurance, the date of accident is shown as 26.06.2005 to claim compensation.
-6-
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the first respondent/claimant submits that the accident had taken place on 26.06.2005 and not on 14.05.2005 as contended by the appellant/insurer. He submits that Ex.P2 and Ex.P5 would make it clear that the accident had taken place on 26.06.2005. He also submits that the respondents have not examined the Investigating Officer in support of their contention and in support of Ex.R3. Thus, prays for dismissal of the appeal.
9. The claimant filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming damages caused to the Ford Icon Car bearing registration No.KA-18/ M-7888. It is stated that the accident occurred on 26.06.2005. The Tribunal had framed the first issue as to whether the petitioner proves that on 26.06.2005, the accident between the car and tanker had taken place?
10. In support of claimant's case, the claimant has produced Ex.P2/FIR which clearly indicates that the -7- accident had taken place on 26.06.2005 which was registered as Crime No.61/2005. The complaint is lodged against the tanker bearing No.KA-19/AB-3395. Ex.P6 is the charge sheet in respect of Crime No.61/2005 wherein it is stated that the accident had occurred on 26.06.2005. In Ex.P6/charge sheet, the date 26.06.2005 is written in ink whereas in Ex.R3/charge sheet, the date is typed as 14.05.2005. Based on the date written in ink in Ex.P6, learned counsel submits that Ex.P6 is manipulated to show the date of accident as 26.06.2005. Further, Ex.P3/spot mahazar also indicates the date as 26.06.2005. It is the contention of the insurer that the charge sheet produced at Ex.P6 is manipulated so as to show the date of accident as 26.06.2005. In support of his contention, the insurer has not examined any of the police authorities. The Investigating Officer would have been the best witness to say the exact date of accident whether it is on 14.05.2005 or 26.06.2005. But the -8- material placed by the claimant would indicate the date of accident as 26.06.2005. The insurer, except relying on Ex.R3 has not made available any other corroborative material in support of their contention. Hence, I am of the view that the Tribunal, on the material available has rightly come to the conclusion that the claimant has proved that the accident had taken place on 26.06.2005 between the Ford Icon car bearing registration No.KA-18/M-7888 and tanker bearing registration No.KA-19/AB-3395.
11. The insurer/appellant has not made out any ground to interfere with the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. I find no perversity or erroneousness to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
-9-
The amount in deposit be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE mpk/-* CT:bms