Karnataka High Court
The National Insurance Co.Ltd., vs Smt.Channawwa W/O Shivanand ... on 23 March, 2017
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
ON THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
MFA No.24971/2010 (MV)
C/w
MFA No.24972/2010
MFA No.24971/2010
BETWEEN
The National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Branch Hubli.
Through its Divisional Manager,
National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Ramadev Galli, Belgaum.
Now represented its
Administrative Officer, A.P.Kulkarni,
Divisional Office, Belgaum.
... Appellant
(BY Sri Laxman.B.Mannoddar, Advocate)
AND
1. Smt. Channawwa
W/o: Shivanand Yettinamath
Age: 24 Years, Occ; Household work,
R/o: Sampagaun village,
Tq: Bailhongal, Dist: Belgaum.
:2:
2. Manjunath
S/o: Shivanand Yettinamath,
Age: 16 Years, Occ: Student,
Rest do.
3. Smt. Channabasawwa
W/o: Mallayya Yettinamath,
Age: 66 Years,
Occ: Household work,
Rest do.
4. Mallikajappa Nagappa Kurahatti
Age: Major, Occ: Business,
R/o: Alagawadi,
R/o: Navalgund, Dist: Dharwad.
... Respondents
(By Sri M.S. Wantamuri, Advocate for R1
R-2 is minor R/by R1, R-3 service held sufficient,
Sri Hegde, Neralgi & Patil, Advocates for R4)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.04.2010 PASSED IN
MVC NO.2677/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER
MACT-IV AND III-ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, BELGAUM,
AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF Rs.4,73,000/-
WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE
DATE OF PETITION AND SHALL BE DEPOSITED
WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF AWARD.
:3:
MFA No.24972/2010
BETWEEN
The National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Branch Hubli.
Through its Divisional Manager,
National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Ramadev Galli, Belgaum.
Now represented its
Administrative Officer, A.P.Kulkarni,
Divisional Office, Belgaum.
... Appellant
(BY Sri Laxman.B.Mannoddar, Advocate)
AND
1. Shri Sanganagouda
S/o: Basanagouda Kulkarni
Age: 50 Years, Occ; Agriculture,
R/o: Bailhongal, Dist: Belgaum.
2. Mallikajappa Nagappa Kurahatti
Age: Major, Occ: Business,
R/o: Alagawadi,
R/o: Navalgund, Dist: Dharwad.
... Respondents
(By Sri Hegde, Neralgi & Patil, Advocates for R2
Notice to R1 held sufficient,)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.04.2010 PASSED IN
MVC NO.2679/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER
MACT-IV AND III-ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, BELGAUM,
AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF Rs.1,12,000/-
:4:
WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE
DATE OF PETITION AND SHALL BE DEPOSITED
WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF AWARD.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents, perused the records.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 being the petitioners have filed the claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation for the death of Shivanand S/o: Mallayya Yettinmath in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 05.11.2005 at about 21.00 hours. The deceased was riding the Bajaj M-80 motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-27/H-4720 along with pillion rider so as to go to Asuti village on Soudatti-Sureban road and when the said motorcycle was near KEB office on Sureban within the limits of Ramadurg PS at that time the driver of Tempo Trax bearing registration No.kA-25/M-5075 came from opposite direction and dashed against the said another Suzuki motorcycle bearing :5: registration No.KA-27/M-1163 in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the above said Bajaj M-80 motorcycle of petitioner and thereby caused the accident. Due to the said impact the deceased and pillion rider fell down from his motorcycle and sustained grievous fracture injuries and shifted to Govt. Hospital at Ramadurg and thereafter shifted to KIMS hospital at Hubli for treatment and admitted as indoor patient and spent Rs.25,000/- for treatment and inspite of the treatment he last his breath. Hence, filed the claim petition seeking compensation.
3. Upon notice received, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have contested in the claim by filing their objections denying the allegation made in the petition. It is further stated in their objections that the alleged incident was taken place between TVS Suzuki motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-27/M- 1163 and Bajaj M-80 bearing registration No.KA-27/H-4720. Therefore, the claimant petitioner does not entitled for seeking compensation and prays for dismissal of the claim petitions. :6:
4. On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues in MVC No.2677/2006 and MVC No.2679/2006:
IN MVC No.2677/2006:
"1. Whether the petitioners prove that the accident arose on 05.10.2005 at about 21 hours near Surebhan KEB office on Surebhan Soundatti road due to Temp Trax No.KA-25/M-5075 and husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2 and son of petitioner No.3 sustained grievous injuries and died?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, at what extent and from whom?
3. What order?"
IN MVC No.2679/2006:
"1. Whether the petitioner proves that the accident arose on 05.10.2005 at about 21 hours near Surebhan KEB office on Surebhan-Soundatti within the limits of :7: Ramadurga PS due to Temp Trax bearing No.KA-25/M-5075 and Bajaj M-80 motor cycle No.KA-27/H-4720 and another Suzuki motor cycle bearing KA-27/M-1163 and sustained grievous injury by him?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, at what extent and from whom?
3. What order?"
5. The trial Court has given findings in MVC No.2677/2006 and held issue No.1 in the affirmative and issue No.2, held the petitioner also entitled to compensation of Rs.4,73,000/- from both the respondents with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and MVC No.2679/2006 held issue No.1 in the affirmative and in issue No.2 held the petitioner is entitled to the compensation of Rs.1,12,000/- with interest at 6% p.a.
6. Both the petitions arise out of the same road traffic accident. Since the petitioner in both the petitions represented by the same counsel and they have been disposed of by the common judgment.
:8:
7. The petitioner in MVC No.2677/2006 examined himself as P.W.1 and petitioner in MVC No.2679/2006 examined himself as PW.2. and PW.3 being the doctor who was subjected to examination stated in his evidence regarding the permanent disability said to have been suffered by the petitioner who got marked Ex.P1 to P.15. No oral and documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of respondent No.2.
8. Thereafter the Court below heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondents and given findings and held issue Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative and awarded the compensation in a sum of Rs.1,06,400/- with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of petition till realization. Hence, the same has been challenged by the insurance company on various grounds as sought for. It is this in which the appeals have been preferred by the appellant by questioning the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal by urging various grounds.
:9:
9. Whereas the learned counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments has contended that the Court below has not looked into the facts and materials available on record. It is further pointed that FIR and complaint which filed against the deceased Shivanand and the rider of M-80 on the complaint of one Mallikarjun. The police have laid the charge sheet against the driver of the aforesaid Temp Trax No.KA-25/M-5075 was implicated in order to make false claim after four months from the date of the alleged incident seeking compensation who filed a claim petition before the Tribunal. It is further pointed that the Tribunal has erroneously held that the accident in question is taken place due to rash and negligent manner of the driver of Tempo Trax in question which is against documents which is produced and also the evidence as well as the materials on record which were at Exs.P1 and P2 which has been ignored by the Tribunal. Therefore, it is necessary to reconsider the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant seeking to set aside the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC : 10 : No.2677/2006 and MVC No.2679/2006 dated 30.04.2010 in common judgment.
10. The learned counsel for the respondents in this appeal has been taken contention to defend the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, as there are no justifiable reasons to call for interference and the same shall be maintained.
11. In these strenuous contentions which has taken by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondents urged on various grounds are concerned. It is relevant to state that on 05.11.2005 at about 9.00 p.m. that the deceased Shivanand was proceeding on Bajaj M-80 motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-27/H-4720 so as to go to Asuti village on Soundatti-Sureban road, the deceased was met with an accident and suffered injuries. There is no dispute about the injuries, which were sustained by him due to the accident met on the aforesaid date. As a result of that impact the deceased Shivanand was suffered injuries and also admitted in KIMS : 11 : hospital for taking treatment and succumbed to the injuries in the said hospital. It is further noticed in the impugned judgment that PW.1 and PW.2 have been subjected to examination in the claim petitions and also produced several documents which is at Exs.P1 to P9, relating to MVC No.2677/2006, Exs.P.10 to P15 relating to MVC No.2679/2006. As these documents have been produced by the petitioners for claiming compensation against the respondents. Further it is relevant to state that Ex.P8, post mortem report, which is produced by the petitioner in MVC No.2677/2006 but it states that he last breath to the accident met and the petitioner sustained injuries in MVC No.2679/2006. These are very much required to consider which is at Ex.P10, copy of the wound certificate, Ex.P11, the injury certificate, Ex.P13, the disability certificate, as these documents which has been produced by the claim petitioner apart from Ex.P15,X-ray film. These documents have been taken into consideration by the Tribunal and awarded compensation as sought for keeping in view of the evidence adduced by PW.1 and 2 and also the evidence of : 12 : PW.3. Apart from these which were to be considered has to be produced by the petitioners to establish their case against the respondents being the appellant in these appeals, seeks for dismissal of the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
12. However, the learned counsel for the respondents in support of his contention has produced the case in MFA No.20798/2009 clubbed with MFA No.20797/2009 dated 05.03.2013 which is passed by this Court as a ratio of this reliance are squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in these appeals on hand.
13. Therefore, keeping in view the various grounds urged in these appeals as well as the contention of the respondents are concerned, I am of the opinion that the appeals deserve to be rejected as devoid of merit to reconsider the evidence on record as well as revisiting the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
: 13 :
14. For the aforesaid reasons and findings, both the appeals filed by the insurance company are hereby dismissed in as much as devoid of merits.
Sd/-
JUDGE msr