IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 6"?" DAY OF FEBRUARY, 203.0
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.VENUGOPALA'<'.GOW'{5VAR H
M.F.A.NO.10909/20vO8"(M\j_)
BETWEEN:
Nationafi Insurance 03., Ltd.,
Do~2, Lafibagh Road,
Through its Regionai OffEic.éA;-- _
930.144, Subharam Compiex," ' h
M.G. Road, BangaAlQre~S6O._QE0--1.x_
Represented i4tE;jE/Admf:nistra'Eiv'e
Mr.E<ha}'a P8$HaL«4..V"*V.~-~':~_V ._ .
E 5; ' E ...APPELLANT
(By Sri.VB.C.:SeeEh§':E:frneVM'R_Ei'C,_'Adv.)
AND: _ _ .
1. Sefr_£t'.uAA.Dhané€a.f§Shm:i,
. Aged {about 53 y'e'"a"'r"s',
E. B.L.iV|'.ga~r,aju.
Aged abouir 33 years,
S/C B;----I,in'g"araju.
E Beigéh adre residing at E\lo.567,
'~3T"'_Main, Bhuvaneshwarinagar,
"§R.T. Nagar, Bangaiore-S6O O32.
i\)
3. Smt. Bindu Philip, Major,
W/O Mr. Philip,
No.37, Janaki Nilaya,
Ashwathanagara A.C.Post,
Bangalore-560 O45.
...RESPOND.El\éTS
(By Sri. Chandrashekar, Adv. for M/s Lawyer's
and R2; ._
R3 served) V V
This MFA is filed under
against the judgment and award dated":.,_19.3.V2_QO8
in MVC l\io.3192/2007 on the._V,VVVfi..l,e ofdthel :4'? 'Additional = '
}udge, Court of Small Causes,___VVMeVrri-b_er, VMACVT, Bangalore
SCCG--10, awarding a 'co'mpe.fisation.__o,fV'Rs.3,36,OC)O/-- with
interest @ 6% pa from th-ie:dVateV of _p.etiti~on'_~_till deposit.
for_VVVhVearing this day, the Court
delivered the folloi}iiinVgt»:,,_V'=__V' . V
V V ",i_tJ.'DGMENT
_~'l,CvhVa!|engVe"'-in____thi.s appeal is to the judgment and
*a;ward the MACT, awarding compensation of
interest at 6% per annum. Appellant
wasVVVVthe"V.15'VVrespondent in the claim petition filed before the
VVThe claim petition had been filed by the 1″ & 2″”
respondents herein. For the purpose of convenience, the
E
/
M
parties would be referred to with reference to their rank in
the MACT.
2. One Lingaraju, ailegediy met with an accident
while riding his scooter on 02.03.2007 on Queens rzioeo,
Bangafore and sustained injuries. An FIR in respect’_,of__’_tfi~EI~
aiieged incident was lodged before the Shiva_j,i_najg.arififraffic 0
Police on 05.03.2007, aileging that,
2935 dashed against the scooter No’.–i§{‘Av04~E_–.e7.3’.3’0,0′ as a” 0
result, the said person and his wifereii down ha.-.0 sostained
injuries. Said Lingarajuzijawnd .are.aIIegedVAVto have
taken firstt”‘aid.,:15reatf:’i’en’tin S’re«i’f’a””i-iuospital, Bangaiore and
later Linlgarajfu’ _.in. the Bhagawan Mahaveer
Jain Hospitaia 0’L.,in’g.-airaju died in the hospitai on
__due”V’tov-mrespiratory faiiure, infection, renai
V.’–..faii1Vire,,Ad’iabe,tic:’nephropathy and fracture of pubic ramus.
-iC’iaim petition was fiied under Section 166 of
Indian” Motor Vehicies Act, 1988, against the owner
=i-nsurer of the said car. Ciaim petition was contested
“ii’:flb\,:__}the insurance company by filing its statement of
‘$2
objections. Owner of the car, though was served with
notice of the petition, did not file the statemei5.._t;7of
objections. Based on the pleadings of the
framed three issues. 1″ petitioner deposed .and_:”
another witness was examined:=__as,.._?W?2.”
petitioners, Exhibits P-1 to ex-3_ we’re,_1’r.-iarkeciit;for’the
respondents, no evidence !ed_ 0′ fioweyer, the
insurance poiicy was marlred [as,~E§&;R5i.’=,Appreciating the
evidence placed on recoArr:l,.:.lYl~AC’TV allo’wved’:tih«e’ claim petition
in part and
4,.” “”” “i”*his_ “been preferred by the
insurance 04.companjy._:’~all’egi«ng that, the petitioners
misrepresented” that, AL’.inVg’araju, aged about 58 years died
’00”-.on V-ot3.o,3:.2oo7 pe”l’l«ant, the accident is manipulated one to get
compensation for the death of chronic diabetic
\
/1
nephropathy patient Lingaraju. According to the appellant,
the owner of the car i.e., the 2″” respondent in the claim
petition, has also joined hands in the process of
wrongfuf award against the insurance com;”pa’ny;’—.!:_i5y___’*_
misrepresenting the facts. It is alleged that–,~the::decea«sed_:u
was a person of political background hius.:d.eperid:ents_u.A
ie, the petitioners, have rnal__r_iaged._’t”o
records and post mortem report~«..V’gto_Vsuit” claim,
which has resulted in and
wrongful liability on
5,” tttt tli’Alan.g t’he.V.:’appealV,”‘IlV.A No.2/2008 has been
filed underlOrde-rV14il’:_:~R’U’l’Fl:lt2?«ofC.P.C, seeking permission
to produce twoV_V’do.c’um’enVt’s i.e., death summary issued by
‘=Bhag.a{wa;n M»a.havee’r”3ain Hospital in respect of B.Lingaraju
accident’s report prepared by the motor
vehiclle The petitioners have filed objections to
%l’~..«.4_”vI.A.No.2/21008 contending that, the averments made in the
in support of the application are false and created
to? suit the convenience of wrong defence taken by the
XX.’
6
insurance company ~ appellant and hence, the prayer for
production of additional evidence be refused.
6. Sri B.C.Seetharama Rao, learned advocate
appearing for the appellant ~ insurance company \i’.”O_tJ|d
vehemently contend that, though the accident_wa”l:|egé’d.,l.y..V
took place on 02.03.2007, the police it
resorting to acts of manipulation andfrazid regiVsvt.eredfonVl7;
05.03.2007 and the alleged injyuredlidied-_lon 06.703′;2o.07″–l.0″~iff*.
is contended that, the petitione–r.s””‘have “played, the 0′
MACT, have suppressed,’ thei””trLie’ufacts,ltwithheld the
materialv’docurt§.entAs:(‘evi:lde.n’ce alndlllhave obtained an award
against illegally. Learned counsel
contended lat”i~.a_t,v.theA°.de’c’eased was a known case of
.—.,.,hyp’e.rtei..;.5ion, diabetesymallites, CRF, diabetic nephropathy
onVrnairiteinance’jhaemodialysis and though there was no
acci.d’entva.t’aiiiinvolving the car, which was insured by the
il’~.~.._’H.appeliantA;1- a fake accident has been brought into picture
“~l.’ap.dg”t’aking advantage of death of Lingaraju, by resorting to
acts of manipulation, the claim petition has been filed and
/«
by playing fraud on the tribunal, an award has been
obtained, which becomes clear from the
evidence, which has been proposed to be
seeking permission of this Court.
7. Per contra, Sri Ch’a,nd–.r_’as”hel{ar’,’
advocate appearing for the respo’adents 1__ &2»~j”pet’i’tieiiers
contended that, the case put :fortfri._iri–._._I.A..i’\io–.:2/2,Ci§O8 and
the appeal are altogetherflnewtcaseu.’:w.h§:’eh~.. has come into
existence in the appeal and much less
contested and hence, the
appellant ‘h1a3riV5n_ot’:::§i§’e raise the contentions
which are taken in the statement
of obj,e’ctions”‘wfiledto t’heVi”claim petition before the MACT.
“J”«i.,eaI’=ned2,__cou~n,sel con’te’nded that, Pws -1 & 2 were cross~
by the learned counsel, who
rep’resent_ed insurance company and nothing material
eliciyted to doubt about the accident or the death of
‘itingparaju, who sustained injuries in the motor vehicle
–..fi’aci}:ident and despite taking treatment, died at the hospital.
\
Z
Learned counsel contended that, the insurance company
has taken untenable stand in the appeal, oniy to delpiriyhe
the benefit of legitimate award passed by
favour of the iegal representatives of the _decAefased:,: who’
has died on account of sustaining the injufries in_’the’~.r’ncoVtor, f
vehicie accident caused on acc’o_unt oftiiyactionéible
negligence on the part of the ii””ij._V”:respon’d-en:t’in the claim
petition. Learned counsel,«–mai_dei.submiywssions support of
the findings and_concluAs.io,n_s–.,ottitibu’nal,5..’i,n5’the impugned
3’udgment/aW,a,,itj_,’::::~i.’_.
8} “”” E”iglitfi}/e’.:E1él’!i:S’€a iheiiecm. It is true that, the
case asvxlsought in this appeal and LA
i\io.2[2D08 not t’ivie””case of the insurance company
‘ V”-before the i:ribunal;”””‘However, the insurance company has
,aen§iea :al.lLthie,.:a_§,iegations made in the ciaim petition. In
support of LA No.2/2008, the insurance
“i..,compa’n_yii~has stated that, the impugned award has been
‘i”obtai’i_ied by misrepresenting the facts on the basis of
manipulated records. According to the insurance company,
*2
I0
settled by catena of decisions of the Apex Court that “fraud
and justice never dweil together”. It is also said
eisewhere, “no judgment of a court, no order of a m,ir.».iste_r
can be aliowed to stand if it has been obtainedfby–«’fifa,uVtif;’.:.
for fraud and un~rave|s everything”. The cont-e.nti~on’*~.ur’geci_:it
for consideration by the iearned adyocate. .’
insurance company, prima~f.acie.V apVpea’i’sVto’V:”Vo;e:
when read with the contents produced
along with LA cannot be
straight away accepted’as,’add’iv.ti§l%,£fIa’i”‘veyiidence and acted
upon, which hearing to the
petitioners ‘documents or to lead further
evidence.«FThe_ peti.tiAorie:rss.”have a right to question the
autheintvicrity of V’th.e:documents now sought to be produced
inisuraéynce company and they shouid not be deprived
of re-asoxn e rtu n i ty.
the case of S.P.Chengaivaraya Naidu (dead)
it 1,35 Vs. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs and others, reported
No.2/2008. The allegations made by the insurance
company cannot be brushed aside without probing to”—.the
matter. If an enquiry is held into the matter by
by giving opportunity of hearing to both sides, M
will occasion to either of the parties” ‘ar~..dg_ ‘endsfovfl_justé’cex””.
would be well secured. If the insurance companyzisy
provided with an opportunity ‘t.o””subst’antiatej”_its’;cases’ as
Dut forth in this apll-exal, lead””to*’§serious
miscarriage of justice. lnae respondents
herein/petitioners:Qwoul(ii_AVV’n§tfl::be::VAdtéfefifedn granting an
opportunity to produce its
evidence’ aparttroifni:cro’s’s.;:e’><a'm'inEng PW.1 and PW.2. The
interest of'-the petitior:ie»~rsi""_could be protected by directing
the to aV'ffo_rdV reasonable opportunity of hearing to
place thveir eyidence as well and also cross~examine the
y§:i.tn'essés«o§_tri~e"i"nsurance company.
"the"result, I allow this appeal, aside the impugned
it "gyudgmyenyt/award passed by the MACT and direct the MACT
–j’_-to’-consider the claim put forth by the petitioners afresh,
‘tr,
.« s
13
after affording reasonable opportunity to the insurance
company to substantiate its allegations. The insurance
company is at liberty to file additional statem.en»t:”o_f
objections. If found necessary, the MACT is at:’_:’li’b’ert;y:
raise additional issue. Opportunitymmay _to_:u
both sides to lead evidence in respect ;_of«ythesi,r.’irrirespedtivieiif
cases. The parties are directed -to ap’pe’a”i’ in on
01.03.2010 and receive furthev;r’*b:rd.e’vrsViifrothfjthei MACTL
Since the learned parties have
undertaken to keep theircli_ent.s–.VVpireseinitkbefore the MACT
on 01.03.2014.VG_;4ti:.ie.re MACT to issue
court Both parties shall co~
operate lithe”trib.uria’l”_;.for the early disposal of the
matt,e§r.’V MACTV’is.._diVrect:ec:l to dispose of the matter before
i’ is .rna_.de clear that, any observations made in this
%°*-…_”j,udgme’nt_°1shall not be construed as expression of opinion
merits of the matter and the tribunal shall decide
. matter on its merit. W
-.4
14
The amount in deposit in this appeal is ordered
refunded to the appeilant.
Registry is directed to retumaathe V
without any deiay.