IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 12th day of March,
PRESENT * "
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE CHIDANA.'SIj)A:fI::II'.}'I;Ai{'_"A
ANDV
THE HON'BLE MR.JLIs'1'Ic:E As;
pmarazxpznzawagaznnn
.F'.A.No.11_47' 1/2065 (Ivuqn X X V
in
a.l'\r'I.«vl' \4\('g,'q
K.A.Ravindran,
S _/ o.lat:e Achuthan,
Aged about63;yjrsw, ' ;
Wat. No.15', n'
'
'A' Main, 4*3!V.c11o$s, ' ' _
Muneswara « -- .9
Pa1acev:Guttaha1li,_ v "
B.mg.=a-.'.'*;_*=_1"e'e- 5.60' _
.. Appellant
= _ (B32: Murthy, Adv. for appellant.)
1. United; India Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Ncfii. 8- 11:11 moss,
Sainpigc road,
"_«l\/Ialleswaranl,
-- Bangalore -- 560 003.
t11.rr11rIr\'r|
Pfabhunm nu,
Aged about 49 yrs.,
1/A 'T'i'les Factory Road,
behind Lakshmi Bakery,
Uppagahalli,
Tumkur -- 572 101.
3. Karunakaran @ Karma,
S/'o. Mliannan,
Aged about 35 yrs.,
No.33, 431 cross,
Nagapp street, I
Palace Guttahalll,
Bangalore -- 560 003. .
w . e ' .. Respondents
(By Srl.A.M. Venkatesll,’ ‘1.,,)
This Me. l’i’3{1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, “l.98.81,;__against timejiudgrnent and award (It. 8-9-
QOOS passer} :lVIVC No;vv3828l/ 2001 on t.he file of the I Acldl.
SCJ 311d~ –.Mr:1nber_,– MAUI’, “”Mett’opolitan Area, Bangalore,
{SCCI-1:11}: di’en1i§sing..etl1e__ claim petition for compensation.
This 4′ lMFA’V on for final hearing this day,
A PACHHAPETRE J ,, delivered the following:
. . VT’
– JUDGM N1 —
l’ by the claimant is clireeted :,ag_in.t the
lfl’1.T(“‘i
.lV1VLa NO. 823f2001
E
5
III
1* 9′-
D
E:
21.
na
5:
3
E3.
*1.
Fa-
CO
I
Q3
I
10
CD
CD
‘CH
E5′
OJ
“_dit~’.ni5_ssi11g the claim of the appellant.
2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as
under :
That on 24-6-98, an accident occu1’1’ecl»,’p:.”‘–v§.rhen the
claimant – petitioner was carrying the Ea..pt1r11’ee
wheeler auto bearing registration
hired by the clainiatnt. It is
the vehi”ie dr”ve it ‘”1 a’.1fashVlland~– and
caused the accident. The in the
said accident and for coniperisation. He
contended that the 1*”tol’3..’are the ins1h’er, owner
and driver _~:esrYe¢;i:i’.IeiI;. 31 .r3;ft.er.t.*ie”11e*.-ice cf the “””tion, the
. ‘5’ V , H :_ , ‘ PC
ex parte,iiiii’1e;%ea.e~ appeared and filed objections
denyhrg urasii driving and also quantum of
compensation Aeiaimed as highly exhorbitant and r-1r.,i’t.a.1″y.
“DVI.ii’i11g7tiiI.e’ eourse of _.non…ry, .he elmiauet. e”amined himself
PL?! .1. , “fjd D”-Ash:
I’
akh Ahmed as P.W.2, and in the
evide11c_e,’ gndtinaarked Ex.P.1 to 13.37. The respondents did not
it jlead arty: evidence. On the basis of the material placed on
i’ . l reecrcl, though the Tribunal came to the concluei_n tl.a- the
it ” -accident was the t- the rae… and negligent d*i'”‘ig of the
driver {3-‘–‘ reepunu ut , held that the appellant is the owner of
the vehicle in View of the information contained in the first
ad
4
informafion report gfdisnlissed the claim of the apt .._1=.a_nt
on the grcund that he was the owner of t.r’e:’j~vft*’a1′”-1′ 1n
question and that he has no authenticity -ecisim
compensation. Aggrieved by t11ere_iection oi°’eet11eVpet’1tion,u ‘the._
claimant is before this Court in
LL
7’
-13
:4
ti?’
‘5
55
CE
313′
{D
93
C1.
:3′-
En
HE’
E:
are * H
. 3;,
“3
5
ad
’23
:
3
#4
“P
5
CD
W
“D
Ta?
E
H
and the respondent. 1_1aVe_perused»thc..records, i. e. the FIR
– Ex.P. 1 and also. produced. It is true
that the “report_;isV.1odgec1 by the complainant
|._|o
and there..is’j;ref”e§:”e11cep ‘that”i’1e”is the own_.r of th.. ante 1’1
questi:c_n.” :_Thi_s’ d””:i*d hr’ the claimallt in the
pleadings,tso* also evidence. He has inlpleaded the
” v owner; ._of the tie fifllfi as the second respondent and the
though served has not appeared. The
clminant, ‘is. in his evid .:n_ce t_hs_.; he in: not we cwner
of the_’;:iehie1e and me Insure” has not denied the
‘7’_cwnersi’flp of second respondent. If really the vehicle was not
” voivnecl by the second respondent, the insurer could have
produced the insurance policy to show or prove that the
hiclei Sc ..-1e D “—m’cduc..icn
claimant was the owner of the v
of the Insurance policy by the Insurance Co., in its
custody, leads to an adverse inference gas’
specifically made a claim that the $0-Gfllti.V1235-‘,}}*C!ll{.1t’.l1ij”‘1′”. {hie
owner, the mere fact th-“t. 1 re is a r,ei’erence.”of’ iliisi-slowrne1’ship 5
in the first iriformatiori report in is, suiiicient
to reject his claim on the groiind that owner. The
parties could have ‘Registration Certificate,
insurance policy and ‘ -ot11c33’\»…4g1LiCL.rne11. to prove me
5. it _ii.his’,.:_itl1e elahnant had sustained injuries
and it is ‘does not know the contents of the
first ;infor1nation_V’repoit __nd he had not ..1struet=>’l th” an” ‘r,
iifthoaii. is :~,§-me-~ vi’ th” venic e. it is well established principle
“C31” “ti§iat._ first information report is not a substantial
pu..rpose”‘ of corroboration, or contradiction and not to ascel.
piece. of evidence and it has to be looked into only for the
1”?
_ the Conte1’1ts independ 2J:1t–1yi In that new of i”.i”i” ni-“t”r, t’1e
~ ” “a”pproach oi’ the ‘i’ribunal in accepting the contents of the first
iiiformation report is wholly illegal and improper. In the
:>(
\’H
ISM
circumstances, the finding of the Tribunal in fliiaseegard has
to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside~:~— f it
C3’
1:-
an
-5
. 11
.egards the r-“eh -“‘”}»c’1 1-g’1=c+e.m: _ch–‘–ixiing__ Issu.e.i
11
0.1, the Tribtlnal has answered “theissue’in.aflir1t;ative’;’ And
that finding is not challenged’ the Ins-3
mc:u~1»ea the expenses. The
“I”ri’Duna1 haci’i:.a.;”g1ut}’itokansxfifer that issue, by appreciating the
mate1jia1_ o191’i’i7ifeetird ‘xai’1£1__ -give a finding and would have
quantified the”. ame.Lii’1t.u’ of compensation for which the
claimant was ..ei’1titleii, in case he was nut the ewner of the
?
‘*.*’.Shi{‘:l8..i. Ag’-3–i”«.tl1e ‘I’1’ihu'”a1 hes’ Tt given its finding on the
_oi”.i’V;’co-mpensation, we are of the opinion that the
n1atter’–.’has””to be remitted back to the Tribunal.
,1 .V”’.’
1
1e matter is remitted back
to the Triburial, with a direction to dispose of the case in
accordance with law by giving an opportuiiity to both the
(>6,
parties to lead additional evidence on tlid q’Li,:6′:ss’itiQl1 of
ownership of the vehicle involved in the
giving a finding as regards thg-2′ dtianiztiin ,
Further, the ‘I’ribu1,ai is _1irt:..t..d ta fisspese cf the saé.’ew’it.”1in
1._1_
m”nths from “T: Clatf: ofc-a.i3i1n1t1nic£itio1i.’%3f ifihis order.