IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.NO.5744 OF 2013 (MV) BETWEEN:
GOWDEGOWDA @ PAPANNA S/O LATE DASEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS CHIKKAHONNENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBALI HASSAN TQ AND DISTRICT – 573 201 (BY SRI. GIRISH B. BALADARE, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE MANAGER ... APPELLANT THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD VENKATESWARA BUILDING PB NO.108, B.M. ROAD HASSAN – 573 201 2. K.A. RANGAPPA S/O ARASEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS GANGADHARA PROVISION STORE OPP. AKASHAVANI SALAGAME ROAD HASSAN - 573 201 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. D. VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 – SERVED UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.12.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.9/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER AND ADDITIONAL MACT, FAST TRACK COURT-I, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The claimant is in appeal aggrieved by saddling of the liability on the respondent-owner under the judgment and award dated 17.12.2012 passed in MVC No.9/2012 on the file of the Additional District Judge and MACT, Hassan.
2. The claimant filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation for the accidental injuries suffered in a motor vehicle accident. It is stated that on 06.07.2011, when the claimant was walking in front of DHO office, Salagame Road, a motor cycle bearing No.KA-13-R-7569 came and dashed against the claimant. Due to which, he suffered grievous injuries.
3. On issuance of notice, respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared before the Tribunal but, only respondent No.2 filed its objections denying the claim petition averments.
4. The claimant examined himself as PW-1 and also examined Doctor as PW-2 apart from marking documents from Exs.P1 to P12. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal had formulated the following points for consideration.
«ªÁzÁA±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ 1. ¢£ÁAPÀ 06-07-2011 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß 2-00 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ºÁ¸À£À £ÀUÀgÀzÀ rºÉZïN PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄA¨sÁUÀzÀ ¸Á®UÁªÉÄ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ JqÀ¨sÁUÀzÀ°è aPÀ̺ÉÆ£ÉßãÀ ºÀ½îUÉÀ £ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛgÀĪÁUÀ CfðzÁgÀgÀ »AzÀÄUÀqɬÄAzÀ §AzÀ CAzÀgÉ ºÁ¸À£ÀzÀ £ÀUÀgÀzÀ PÀqɬÄAzÀ §AzÀ PÉJ-13-Dgï-7569gÀ DQÖêÁ ºÉÆÃAqÁ ¨ÉÊPï£À ZÁ®PÀ CzÀ£ÀÄß CwªÉÃUÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CeÁUÀgÀÆPÀvɬÄAzÀ Nr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ CfðzÁgÀjUÉ rQÌ ªÀiÁrzÀ ¥ÀjuÁªÀÄ vÁ£ÀÄ wêÀæªÁV UÁAiÀÄUÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ¹zÀÞ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀgÉÃ?
2. CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ¥ÀjºÁgÀPÉÌ CºÀðgÉÃ? ºÁVzÀÝgÉ JµÀÄÖ ªÉÆvÀÛPÉÌ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ AiÀiÁjAzÀ?
3. K£ÀÄ DzÉñÀ CxÀªÁ rQæ?
5. The Tribunal based on the material on record awarded a total compensation of `1,01,000/- with 6% interest from the date of petition till realization and saddled the liability on the respondent-owner of the offending vehicle.
6. Aggrieved by saddling of the liability on respondent No.1, the claimant is before this Court praying for shifting the liability from respondent No.1- owner to respondent No.2-Insurer.
7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent-Insurer.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal having come to the conclusion that the appellant has proved the accident, failed to saddle the liability on respondent No.2- Insurer. It is his submission that accident had taken place on 06.07.2011 and he was admitted to Hospital on the same day. He lodged complaint at Ex.P4, mentioning the vehicle number and rider of the Bike as K.R. Venugopal. The Tribunal without looking into the material on record, such as Ex.P-4 and the charge sheet at Ex.P-1, saddled the liability on respondent No.1 instead of respondent No.2-Insurer. Since the policy was in force as on the date of the accident, the Insurer was liable to indemnify respondent No.1- owner. Thus, he prays for allowing the appeal.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent-Insurer would submit that the Tribunal has rightly saddled the liability on respondent No.1.
The claimant, who has filed the complaint as per Ex.P-4 was not sure of the rider of the motor vehicle. There is contradiction in his complaint as well as in the evidence of PW-1-claimant. Insofar as the rider of the motor bike is concerned, it is his further submission that the claimant in his complaint has stated that bike was ridden by one K.R.Venugopal, whereas in his cross-examination, he has specifically stated that the Bike belongs to one Rangappa and bike was ridden by Rangappa. There is no bonafide in the claim and with an intention to claim compensation, in collusion with Police, charge sheet is filed against Gopal K.R, who is said to be the son of Rangappa, the owner of the motor cycle involved in the accident. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
10. The Tribunal while awarding the compensation has rightly saddled the liability on respondent No.1-owner of the motor bike. The accident had taken place on 06.07.2011, when the claimant was walking in front of DHO office, Salagame Road, a Bike bearing No.KA-13-R-7569 dashed against him. Ex.P4 is the complaint lodged by the claimant. In the complaint, he has stated that Bike bearing No.KA-13-R-7569 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him and on enquiry, he states that the name of the driver was K.R. Venugopal. In his evidence, claimant PW-1 has categorically stated as follows.
“¸Á®UÁªÉÄ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀ gÀAUÀ¥Àà £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆvÀÄÛ. UÁr CªÀgÀzÉÝAiÀiÁVvÀÄÛ. CªÀgÉà D ¢£À UÁrAiÀÄ£ÀÄß Nr¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ.”
11. Further, charge sheet is filed as per Ex.P-1 against one Gopal K.R., said to be the son of respondent No.1-Rangappa. In the complaint, Ex.P-4, the claimant states the name of the rider of the vehicle as K.R.Venugopal whereas in the cross-examination, he states that Rangappa was riding the motor bike but, charge sheet is filed against one K.R. Gopal. There is total contradiction in the statement of claimant in the complaint as well as in the cross-examination of PW-1, claimant himself. The Tribunal in those circumstances has rightly saddled the liability on respondent No.1. The claimant is not clear as to who was the rider of the motor bike and who dashed against him while he was walking on 06.07.2011. The judgment and award of the Tribunal is neither perverse nor erroneous so as to warrant interference. The appellant has not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and award.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Mds/-
Sd/- JUDGE