Vajramuni vs United India Ins. Co on 30 June, 2015
There is
no delay in lodging the complaint and since the complaint
has been filed within the two hours of the accident, there
are no chances of false implication of the vehicle by the
petitioner. It cannot be presumed that there has been
false implication only for the reason that, when Srinivas is
known to the petitioner. So, I hold that the contention
taken by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 is not at
all acceptable. Even in the decision relied upon by the
learned counsel for respondent No.1 reported in
(M/s Vijaya V. Shetty V/s Mr. V. Sharada and others),
ILR 2015 KAR 401, the medical certificate was not
SCCH --11 16 MVC No.4277/2013
produced before the Court and the accident occurred purely
on account of false and negligent act on the part of the
claimant and there was no involvement of two vehicles and
injuries stated to have been sustained by victim are not an
account of involvement of vehicle, but an account of skid by
the claim petition. But in this case, MLC register extract
has been produced and in the complaint and FIR, it is
clearly shown about involvement of two vehicles in the
road traffic accident and said vehicles have been seized at
the time of panchanama. Hence the principles laid down
in the said decision are not applicable to the facts of this
case. The learned counsels for respondent insurance
company has also relied upon one more decision of Hon'ble
High Court reported in Veerappa and another V/s
Shivappa and another. In the said decision, the accident
taken place on 26.06.2001 and injured died on 28.06.2001
and no complaint was lodged by the father of the injured
and as per the say of father of the injured, he went and
lodged the complaint on 28.06.2001. In the said decision,
earlier FIR and charge sheet where suppressed by the police
and claimant and vehicle involved in the accident was never
SCCH --11 17 MVC No.4277/2013
seized by the police and during the course of investigation of
the insurer, the truth came out and claim petition dismissed
by the tribunal. The Hon'ble High Court has held that the
insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured
and there is no liability on the part of insurance company to
pay the compensation to the claimants and fixed the liability
upon the owner of the offending vehicle. But the facts of
the said decision and facts of this decision are totally
different. Because, in the said case, earlier FIR and charge
sheet were suppressed by the police and claimants and
vehicle was not seized by the police and there was delay in
lodging the complaint. But, in this case, incident taken
place on 22.04.2013 at about 7.30 p.m., and FIR lodged on
the same day at about 9.30 p.m., and there is no delay in
lodging the complaint. Even in this case, the police have
also seized the vehicle involved in the accident on
27.04.2013 and motor vehicle inspection was conducted.
But, in the decision relied upon the learned counsel for
respondent No.1, the vehicle involved in the accident was
not at all seized and there were earlier FIR and charge
sheet which was suppressed by the police and claimant.