IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE BELLUNKE A.S.
Miscellaneous First Appeal No.3365 of 2013(MV) BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, SRI MANJUNATHA COMPLEX BUS-STAND ROAD P.B.NO.112 HASSAN CITY, HASSAN BY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REGIONAL OFFICE NO.144, SUBHARAM COMPLEX M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001 BY ITS MANAGER APPELLANT (BY SRI O.MAHESH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. NINGARAJU AGED 39 YEARS S/O LATE KALEAGOWDA RESIDENT OF BEERANAHALLI KASABHA HOBLI HOLENARASIPURA TALUK-573 201 PRESENTLY RESIDING AT C/O SHOBHA, DOOR NO.36 BEHIND LADIES HOSTEL VIDYANAGAR HASSAN-573 201 2. H.B.KAMAL AKSHAPPA MAJOR S/O BASAPPA Y HIREBELAGULI VILLAGE KADAVINA KOTE POST-573 201 HALEKOTE HOBLI HOLENARASIPURA …. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.R.LINGARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 SRI B.CHETAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.02.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.1149/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT, HASSAN, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF Rs.2,31,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company/Respondent No.2 against the judgment and award dated 04.02.2013 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional M.A.C.T., Hassan in M.V.C.No.1149 of 2011 questioning the legality and correctness of the award.
2. The parties are referred to by their ranks as they were referred before the Court below.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, the dispute is very much narrow compassed. The ground on which the appeal is filed is that the injured had not suffered injuries on account of any actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the tractor-trailer insured with the Appellant/Insurance Company. The tractor-trailer was falsely implicated in this case with the co-operation of the insured who has remained absent and placed exparte in the petition. The mandatory provisions of Section 134(c) and 158(6) of M.V. Act are not followed. There is a serious contradiction in the complaint filed by the brother of the victim alleging that while walking, the tractor had hit the injured and the vehicle fed away. In the further statement, it is stated that the accident is claimed to have happened when the injured was tying a rope to the tractor after loading the wheat fodder and the tractor made a movement and thereby the injuries were caused to the fingers of the claimant in question. Subsequently, in collusion with the police officials, a false criminal case has been filed and therefore, on this ground alone, the Insurance Company has sought to set aside the judgment and award fastening the liability on the Insurance Company.
4. Based on the above said facts and pleadings, the point that arises for consideration in this appeal is as under:
Whether the Insurance Company can avoid liability of satisfying the award on the ground that the manner of accident quoted in the petition is not proved ?
5. Perused the materials available on record.
Criminal case records has been produced. The FIR at Ex.P2 and complaint at Ex.P3 and further statement of complainant at Ex.P3(a) and other documents have been produced. No doubt, in the complaint it is stated that the accident too place on account of rash and negligent driving of the tractor-trailer and thereby the injured had sustained injuries to the right hand and the vehicle was taken away by the driver without stopping the same. Admittedly, the complainant was not an eye- witness. He was not present at the spot. The complaint was filed by him, he being the brother of the victim has provided information which was an hear-say. In the further statement, he has clearly stated that he was not present along with his brother when the accident took place. He has given such statement only on the information given by others. The injured statement clearly discloses that while loading the wheat powder and while tying the wire to the hook of the trailer, the tractor moved without noticing the said fact caused amputation injuries to the fingers of the injured. That is corroborated by the entries made in the MLC register produced at Ex.R3. The injured is said to have been admitted to the hospital with a history of self-injury due to dragging from wire to the tractor. This is the first information entered in the MLC register immediately after the accident, when the injured was taken to the hospital. In addition to that, medical records have been produced at Ex.P1, which goes to show that the injured has suffered crush injuries to index finger, ring finger, little finger and they were all traumatic amputation. There was also abrasion to the forearm. The photograph of the injured at Ex.P8 goes to show that the tip of the four fingers except the thumb have been amputated. Such injuries could have been caused by dragging of the wire held by the injured. Therefore, there is no other possibility of the injured sustaining injures in any other manner. If that is the fact on record, I find no justification to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal, which is based on material evidence on record. If that ground is ruled out, there are no other grounds to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal so far as the quantum of award is concerned, there is no dispute as such. Hence, the point raised is answered in the negative.
Hence, for all the above reasons, I pass the following:
ORDER The appeal filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed.
No costs.
The amount in deposit, if any, be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.
Registry is directed to send back the lower court records.
(Sd/-) JUDGE DH