IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD M.F.A.No.9095 OF 2011(MV) BETWEEN:
Zonal Manager IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd., Bangalore Zonal Office South KSCMF Building, 3rd Floor 3rd Block, Cunningham Road Bangalore-560 052 Now situated at IFFCO-TOKIO GIC Ltd., Customer Service Centre “Sri Shanthi Towers” 5th Floor 3rd Main, #141, East of NGEF Layout, Kasturi Nagar Bangalore-560 084. … Appellant (By Sri.Chakravarthy D., Advocate for Sri.A.N.Krishna Swamy, Advocate) AND:
1. Munishamappa S/o Late. Venkatappa Now aged about 56 years 2. Smt. Lakshmamma W/o Munishamappa Now aged about 46 years 3. Ravichandra S/o Munishamappa Now aged about 21 years R1 to R3 are R/a Gandhlahalli village & post Srinivasapura Taluk, Kolar District.
4. Govinda Reddy S/o Yelabappa, Major Verthanhalli Village Nambihalli Post, Srinivasapura Taluk, Kolar District. ... Respondents (By Sri.Krishnamoorthy .D., Advocate for R1 to R3: R4 is served but unrepresented) This MFA is filed under 173(1) of MV Act, against the Judgment and Award dated:27.07.2011, passed in MVC No.271/2010 on the file of XIX Additional SCJ & MACT, Bangalore awarding A compensation of Rs.3,66,000/- with interest at 6% P.A. from the date of petition till its realisation.
This MFA coming on for hearing, this day, the Court, delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 27.07.2011 passed by the MACT, Bangalore (SCCH:17), whereby the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.3,66,000/- with 6% interest p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 24.12.2009 at about 7.45 p.m. when the deceased Venkatachalapathy was walking on the left side of the road between Rojaranhalli- Bangavadi, at that time, all of a sudden, a tractor bearing No.KA-07/T-9772 driven by its driver at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the deceased, due to which he fell down and sustained grievous injuries and died at the spot. Immediately thereafter the parents and brother of the deceased have filed the claim petition before the MACT in MVC No.271/2010.
3. To establish their case, claimants have examined first claimant – father of the deceased as PW1 and got marked 12 documents. On the other hand, Insurance Company has examined one witness as RW1 and got marked five documents. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has passed the award and granted compensation of Rs.3,66,000/- together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Being aggrieved by the same the Insurance Company has filed this appeal.
4. Sri D.Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the appellant firstly submits that the offending vehicle bearing No.KA-07/T- 7992 was not involved in the accident. In the complaint the number of the tractor was not correct and the colour also not mentioned.
5. He further contended that the driver of the tractor was a habitual offender and in the habit of lending his name in the accident claim. The Tribunal, without considering all these aspects, has allowed the claim petition. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.
6. Per contra, Sri D.Krishna Moorthy, learned counsel for the respondents claimants submits that the Police have registered the case against the tractor bearing No.KA-07/T-9772 and the charge-sheet has been filed. The Insurance Company has not challenged the charge-sheet filed by the Police. All the records produced by the investigation officer shows that the tractor bearing No.KA-07/T-9772 is involved in the accident. Therefore, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
8. It is not in dispute that Venkatachalapathy, son of Munishamappa died in the accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor. On the complaint the Police have registered the FIR against the tractor bearing No.KA-07/T- 9772 and charge-sheet has been filed. The same has not been challenged by the appellant. On the other hand, the Insurance Company has admitted that there is a policy in force as on the date of the accident. The Tribunal has rightly considered the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of KUSUM LATA AND OTHERS vs. SATBIR AND OTHES reported in AIR 2011 SC 1234. Head-Note A is extracted hereinbelow:
“(A) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S.168 – Claim for compensation – Proof as to involvement of vehicle – Rashly driven vehicle hit victim from behind and sped away – Victim being seriously injured and needed immediate medical aid, it was natural for brother of victim not to note number of offending vehicle – Under mental strain if brother of victim forgot to take down number of offending vehicle and number of vehicle not found mentioned in FIR, involvement of offending vehicle in accident cannot be doubted.”
9. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and also the documents produced by the claimants as Exs. P1 – FIR, P2 – Complaint, P3 – mahazar, P4 – sketch, P10 – IMV report, it is clear that the vehicle bearing No.KA-07/T-9772 was involved in the accident. The Tribunal was justified in giving a finding that the above-said vehicle was involved in the accident. Hence, I am declined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Cm/-