IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR M.F.A. NO. 7598 OF 2016 (MV) BETWEEN M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD SHIMOGA DIVISION , 1ST FLOOR, S S BUILDING, BANGALORE HONNAVARA ROAD, SHIVMOGGA REPRESENTED BY REGIONAL OFFICE, SITUATE NO 144, M G ROAD, BANGALORE - 560001 (BY SMT. GEETHA RAJ, ADVOCATE) AND 1. MR HIRGAIAH S/O LATE NINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 2. MRS HEMAVATHI W/O HIRIGAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 3. MR HARISH H S/O HIRIGAIAH AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS ... APPELLANT R-1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT MARUR VILLAGE, IRAVALLI POST, AREHALLI HOBLI, BELUR TALUK – 573 115.
4. MR GANGESH.M.L AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS RESIDING AT MARUR VILLAGE, IRAVALLI POST, AREHALLI HOBLI, BELUR TALUK – 573 115.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.MURTHY.D.L, ADV., FOR R1 TO R3; R-4 SERVED ) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:26.07.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.1831/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, BELUR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.8,70,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. This appeal by the insurer is presented challenging Judgment and award dated 26.7.2016 in MVC No.1831/2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Belur.
3. Ms.Geetha Raj, learned counsel for the insurer urged following grounds:
firstly that Ex.R2, MLC register extract pertaining to the injured shows that accident had taken place at 4.30 p.m. on 18.10.2015 near Raipura village;
Ex.R3-MLC register extract pertaining to the deceased pillion rider shows that accident had taken place at Surapura gate; and that PW-2, who is the eye witness and the complainant, has stated in his examination that his statement was recorded six months after the accident.
4. On the above grounds, she submits that the claim is false as the place of accident is shown at two different places. Accordingly, she prays for allowing this appeal.
5. Sri.Murthy.D.L, learned counsel for the claimants argued in support of the impugned Judgment.
6. Learned Tribunal in paragraph 11 of the Judgment has recorded that the accident has taken place on 18.10.2015 at about 4.30 p.m. FIR has been registered at 7.30 a.m. on the following day. PW-2 is the eye witness to the incident. The Tribunal has further recorded that insurer sought to contend before the tribunal that there was no clarity with regard to place of accident. To substantiate the said contention, insurer has examined one of its officers. Except his evidence, there is nothing on record to suggest that the accident has not taken place at the place and time mentioned in the claim petition.
7. The MLC register extracts Exs.R2 and R3, upon which learned Advocate for the appellant places reliance to contend that the accident had not taken place, have been produced through an officer working with the Insurance company. The authors of the documents have not been examined. Absolutely no effort has been made on behalf of the insurer to support the contention. It is not in dispute that eye witness has been examined before the Tribunal. Therefore the contention that in Ex.R2, place of occurrence is shown as Raipur and in Ex.R3, it is mentioned near Surapura gate, is too fragile to be countenanced.
In the result, the appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
No costs.
Registry is directed to transfer the amount in deposit to the Tribunal for disbursement, in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE ln.