IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.No.3496/2012 [MV] BETWEEN:
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, SULYA BRANCH KRISHNA BUILDING, MAIN BRANCH DAKSHINA KANNADA NOW REP. BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, SUBHARAM COMPLEX, 144, M G ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI.A N KRISHNASWAMY, ADV.) AND:
1. SHIVARAJU @ R K SHIVARAJU S/O R M KARIYANNA AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS R/O K RANGANAHALLI SIRA TALUK 2. RAJENDRA PRASAD K S/O K M GOPALAKRISHNA BHAT MAJOR R/O DURGA NILAYA MANDEKOLU VILLAGE POST SULYA TALUK, D K DISTRICT.
3. R P ANANTHAPPA S/O PARASANNA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT RANGANAHALI VILLAGE SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DIST ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVARUDRA, ADV. FOR R1 SRI YOGESH V KOTEMATH, ADV. FOR SRI P.H. VIRUPAKASHAIAH, ADV. FOR R3 R2 –SERVICE H/S V/O DT:03.10.2017) THIS M.F.A. FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD 18.06.2009 PASSED IN MVC NO.917/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN), ADDITIONAL MACT, SIRA, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.83,780/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION UNTIL REALIZATION.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T The appellant/Insurance Company is before this Court assailing the judgment and award dated 18.06.2009 passed in MVC No.917/2005 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Additional MACT, Sira.
2. The claimant filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, praying compensation for the injuries sustained in a Road Traffic Accident that occurred on 10.01.2004. It is the case of the claimant that on 10.01.2004 when he was returning home on his bicycle near the Bridge at K. Ranganahalli, at that time, a Motor Cycle bearing Reg.No.CTH-5359 came in a rash, negligent manner and dashed against his bicycle. Due to the impact he fell down and sustained grievous injuries.
3. On issuance of summons, the 3rd respondent – rider of the Motor Cycle appeared before the Tribunal and stated that the vehicle was validly insured with the 2nd respondent – Insurance Company. The insurer was placed ex-parte. The Tribunal based on the material on record awarded total compensation of Rs.83,780/- and saddled the liability on 2nd respondent – Insurance Company holding that there is valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant - Insurance Company is before this Court in this appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant – Insurance Company and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the entire material on record.
5. The one and only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal without there being any basis saddled the liability on the appellant – Insurance Company. The insurance policy is not produced before the Tribunal nor insurance particulars were made available to 2nd respondent – Insurance Company. He further submits that the 2nd respondent – Insurance Company was placed ex-parte. Subsequently the appellant – Insurance Company had filed Miscellaneous petition, which also came to be dismissed. Without there being policy details and without there being copy of the policy on record, the Tribunal could not have come to the conclusion that there is valid insurance as on the date of accident.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the 2nd respondent remained ex-parte before the Tribunal and the 3rd respondent had stated that the vehicle was validly insured.
7. Taking into consideration the submission of the 3rd respondent, the Tribunal held that there is valid insurance as on the date of accident, but the same is not supported by any material evidence. The accident is said to have taken place on 10.01.2004 involving the Motor Cycle bearing No.CTH-5359 and the claimant had suffered injuries due to the said accident. Section 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, requires that if any person is injured as a result of an accident involving motor vehicle, the rider of the vehicle or other person in charge of the vehicle shall give the particulars stated therein to the insurer. In the present case, the accident is not intimated to the insurer, nor the particulars of the policy was furnished to the 2nd respondent – Insurance Company. There was no material on record before the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that there was valid insurance policy as on the date of accident. Without there being any material, the Tribunal could not have come to the conclusion with regard to the valid insurance policy. As such, I am of the view, that the matter could be remanded to the Tribunal, so as to give an opportunity to all the parties to place on record the details of policy or any other material and thereafter the Tribunal shall proceed to pass orders in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh disposal. All contentions are left open and parties are at liberty to lead fresh evidence.
The amount in deposit be refunded to the appellant – Insurance Company.
Sd/- JUDGE NG* CT:bms