IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7754 OF 2010 [MV] C/W.
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7756 OF 2010 [MV] IN MFA NO.7754/2010:
BETWEEN BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, B.M. COMPLEX, LAXMI BAZAR, POST BOX NO.94, CHITRADURGA, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER:
KHAJ PASHA, REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANT [BY SRI. L.SREEKANTA RAO, ADVOCATE] AND 1. SHAHAJAHAN, S/O. TIPPUSAB, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, TEACHER, R.O. J.G. HALLI VILLAGE, HIRIYUR TALUK.
2. THIPPESWAMY, S/O. THIPPERUDRAIAHA, J.G. HALLI VILLAGE, HIRIYUR TALUK. ... RESPONDENTS [BY SRI. R.SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE FOR R1. SRI. SUMANTH L.B., ADVOCATE FOR R2.] THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.04.2010 PASSED IN MVC NO.217/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT., HIRIYUR, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.7,570/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
* * * IN MFA NO.7756/2010: BETWEEN BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, B.M. COMPLEX, LAXMI BAZAR, POST BOX NO.94, CHITRADURGA, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER:
KHAJ PASHA, REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANT [BY SRI. L.SREEKANTA RAO, ADVOCATE] AND 1. NATESH REDDY, S/O. HANUMANTHA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, TEACHER, R/O. J.G. HALLI VILLAGE, HIRIYUR TALUK.
2. THIPPESWAMY, S/O. THIPPERUDRAIAHA, J.G. HALLI VILLAGE, HIRIYUR TALUK. ... RESPONDENTS [BY SRI. R.SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE FOR R1.
SRI. SUMANTH L.B., ADVOCATE FOR R2] THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.04.2010 PASSED IN MVC NO.220/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, HIRIYUR, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.19,005/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
* * * THESE MFAs COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT MFA No.7754/2010 and MFA No.7756/2010 are filed by the Insurance Company, questioning the liability fastened on it to pay compensation to the claimants.
2. MFA No.7754/2010 arises out of MVC No.217/2008, wherein a total compensation of Rs.7,570/- is awarded to the injured/claimant and in MFA No.7756/2010 arises out of MVC No.220/2008, wherein a total compensation of Rs.19,005/- has been awarded to the injured/claimant therein.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant.
4. The facts leading to the filing of these appeals are that;
On 20.02.2008, both the claimants were standing in front of one Jagannatha Setty’s Shop, Kariyala Road, J.G.Halli village, at that time, all of a sudden a Maruti Omni van bearing reg. No.KA-16/9589 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from Sira side and dashed against both the claimants and two other persons. Due to the said accident, the claimants sustained injuries and they were admitted to the Government Hospital, Hiriyur, wherein they took treatment. They have also taken treatment in the private hospital as out-patients. Respective claim petitions were filed seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by them in the aforesaid accident. As noted supra, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.7,570/- in respect of the claim in MVC No.217/2008 and Rs.19,005/- in respect of the claim made in MVC No.220/2008, with interest at 6% p.a.
The Tribunal held that both respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the Tribunal are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and directed the insurer to deposit the compensation amount.
5. Assailing the aforesaid Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal, the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would vehemently contend that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid driving licence to drive a transport vehicle and he was possessing a driving licence to drive only LMV [NT]. There is no endorsement authorizing the driver to drive the type of vehicle which was involved in the accident and therefore, the Tribunal was not proper in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company. He further contends that the vehicle involved in the accident is in fact a Maruti Omni bearing reg. No.KA-16/9585 and there is false implication of the vehicle, which was subsequently shown as KA-16/9589 for want of insurance. Hence, the claimants have played a fraud by implicating the vehicle, which was not involved in the accident for the purpose of claiming compensation. He would submit that initially the offending vehicle’s registration number was mentioned as KA-16/9585 and even in the FIR there is a correction made and the vehicle’s registration number was changed from KA-16/9585 to KA-16/9589. Hence, he submits that the appellant cannot be saddled with the liability to pay compensation to the claimants and accordingly he seeks to allow the appeals filed by the Insurance Company.
6. Learned counsel for the claimants on the other hand contended that the Investigating Authority has filed a charge sheet after investigating into the matter, wherein it is clearly stated that the vehicle which was involved in the accident is a Maruti Omni vehicle bearing reg. No.KA- 16/9589. He submits that merely because there is a correction made in the FIR., the same does not mean that the said vehicle was not involved in the accident. On the other hand, the IMV Report marked at Ex.P4 clearly shows that the offending vehicle i.e., Maruti Omni van bearing reg. No.KA- 16/9589 was damaged. He would contend that the insurer has not at all taken any such contention before the Tribunal and therefore, such contention cannot be permitted to be taken at an appellate stage and accordingly, seeks to dismiss the appeals.
7. It is the case of the claimants that on 20.02.2008, when they were standing in front of a shop of one Jagannatha Setty, Kariyala road, J.G. Halli village, all of a sudden, a Maruti Omni van bearing reg. No.KA-16/9589 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from Sira side and dashed against them. On account of which they suffered injuries. In this regard, a complaint came to be lodged against the driver of the offending vehicle on 20.02.2008 at about 8.40 p.m. It is stated in the complaint which was lodged by one Manjappa, s/o. Kariyappa that the Maruti Omni van driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from Sira side and dashed against the claimants and the injured persons were shifted to the hospital for treatment. It is noticed that there is some correction made in respect of the registration number of the vehicle, wherein it is corrected as KA-16/9589. Ex.P26 is the certified copy of the FIR., wherein it is seen that initials were put in the place where the correction was made to the vehicle’s registration number. A perusal of this document goes to show that the complaint was lodged by one Manjappa, who is also an injured. In Ex.R3- MLC extract, at the bottom, with regard to the history it is mentioned as on account of a road traffic accident at J.G. Halli at 7.00 p.m. due to hit by Maruti Omni van bearing reg. No.KA-16/9585. Placing reliance on the said document, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance company contended that in the initial document viz., Ex.R3, the vehicle registration number is mentioned as KA-16/9585. He would also draw the attention of the Court to the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2-claimants and submitted that the vehicle’s registration number has been disclosed by them to the doctor and therefore, there is an admission and the admitted fact need not be proved.
8. It is no-doubt true that in Ex.R3, in the bottom there is a note made with regard to the vehicle registration number as Maruti Omni van KA-15-9585. However, the person, who has made that note has not been examined to clarify as to whether the said registration number was in fact given by the claimants, who are examined as P.Ws.1 and 2. Though P.Ws.1 and 2 in the cross-examination have admitted that they have stated that the accident was on account of involvement of the Maruti Omni van and that they have given the registration number of the vehicle, however, it is not elicited in their cross-examination as to the exact registration number of the vehicle in question. On the other hand, it is specifically stated by them in their evidence that the registration number of the vehicle which caused the accident was KA-16/9589.
9. The Insurance Company has examined an officer of the Company as R.W.1. He has stated that since there was no Insurance Policy coverage to the Maruti Omni van bearing reg. No.KA-16/9585, the claimants have implicated the Maruti Omni van bearing reg. No.KA-16/9589 to make a false claim. The appellant has not adduced any evidence to show that there was no Insurance Policy coverage to Maruti Omni van bearing reg. No.KA-16/9585 by examining the owner of the said vehicle. The fact remains that the Police after completion of the investigation have filed a charge-sheet against the driver of the Maruti Omni van bearing reg. No.KA- 16/9589 which is not disputed. Further, it is also seen from the IMV Report which is marked as Ex.P4 that the front wind screen and front body of the vehicle bearing reg. No.KA- 16/9589 were damaged. Hence, the appellant/Insurance Company has failed to establish that the vehicle which was involved in the accident is not the Maruti Omni Van bearing reg. No.KA-16/9589.
10. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a driving licence to drive a transport vehicle and he was possessing a driving licence to drive only LMV [NT] and that there is no endorsement in the driving licence to drive a transport vehicle and therefore the appellant is not liable to pay compensation. However, the said contention cannot be accepted in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Devangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in AIR 2017 SCC 663. For the foregoing reasons, I pass the following:
ORDER The appeals are dismissed.
The amount in deposit in both the appeals shall be transmitted to the Tribunal.
In view of dismissal of the appeals, Miscellaneous Civil No.15300/2010 does not survive for consideration and the same is accordingly disposed off.
Sd/- JUDGE.
Ksm*