Rukmani Sundarajan vs Usha Srihari on 17 February, 2010

0
49
Karnataka High Court
Rukmani Sundarajan vs Usha Srihari on 17 February, 2010
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 17?" DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010
PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KSREEDHAR RAO___ 

AND

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.vENueoRALA. C§:j'iAI,jD.A,T-'R--.--i," ~

MISCELLANEOUS EIRST APPEfi\_1....NO_.S3f5S'/2'CIfJv4'V'{'M\;'A)V  
BETWEEN: I

Smt. Rukmani Sundarajan, '

W/0. Late Sunderajan,

Aged about 55 years, 

#16/1, 18"" Cross, ''

Maiieswaram, '-- ~    _

Bangaiore -~ 560 055. '- _  '
  " :ARRELLANT

(By Sri  G.D.SrinivaSa &
Sri. _M.Mafiade-v,aViah,=,Adv's.)

    ..... 

I .1.” Sriharé,

‘N/’O ‘I ate rih a ri,
‘R/a #”7’j_60’, III Stage,
‘A-1I1..g3i’ocR’, 10″‘ Mam,
Basaweshwaranagar,

I ,,_.Bar’1’gaiore — 560 079.

_$ince deceased Rep. by L.R.

Smt. Indumathi Hegde, W/0. Vijay Hegcie,
Aged about 39 years,
R/a No.710, Ashok Heights,

%/

Sreekanteswaranagar,
Mahalakshmi Layout,
Bangalore – 560 096.

2. M/s. The New India Insurance
Company Ltd.,
R/a Unity Building, ‘B’ Block, ..

J.C. Road, I
Bangalore — 560 027.

By its Branch Manager.

(By Sri A.Nagaraj, Adv. for C/Rl4i”;-K
Sri. M.Suresh Kumar, Adv. for””R’1,.;”
Sri. R.JaipraE<ash, Adv;-.._fer_'R2.);,j_'1

This appeal fiied.»w-Lt.n.der'-Section Li;.1T("3'(1) of MV Act
against the Ju,dg.m'ei'It and A§watrd"~d'_at,ed 29.05.2004 passed
in Mvc i\:o,,:2,85gty*'99,,'-ori,_ the filve' oi""the Addi. Judge,
Member, M'AC'!_'-V,""C'ourt,t3.f, $–.r.n'a_i|V"Ca.uses, Bangalore, SCCH
No.5, awardi'n.g:",, c:ornp.ens'atio'n Bj-of Rs.3,83,000/– with
interesit"a"t6_%;p.aifi.; " "

This’ Bappeal-~.,,:VCorné,n”g’ ‘B on for hearing this day,
SREEDi-£Af{“RACr J_., –del:’_ve_r’ed” the following:

_ JUDGMENT

“t,,O’net’_P~ra’veen Kumar was the inmate of the car

inspired withrespondent No.2. The car was driven by one

‘x_Chand.ra’g_Kurnar who was respondent No.3 before the

A “:l:”TA,riVlb”d«na| and his name was deleted from the case. The car

.’ at about 1.10 a.m. in the night, hit against a stationary

%/

Eorry which was parked on the road side, as a _result,

Praveen Kumar died. The poiice after investigati«o’nIf”h:a=i!Ae

fiied the charge–sheet against one Chandra–A4″t(uvnstar;”-the”

driver of the car for rash and negiiigentddtiyvirigg ‘a’ndj_fd.r

causing death by negiigence.

2. The insurer admits’i’i»tVhe occurr.en’ce’ oiiafcfcident,
coverage of ii”iSUFafiCL3.;Mi}LJt .it”ri.a.t Chandra Kumar
was not the driver driver who
was not at the behest of
the fietitioneqr Chandra Kurnar as
the arzvférro insurer. The Tria! Court
upon coimsfideratigorii’Loftdtiie’:”ev~i’dence, has directed insurer to

satisfy the 4a’w;:;ird..withv. right of recovery from the owner of

.-.Athe:c._c’ar;_~-Thfiownfeirtieiivng aggrieved by the award, has fiied

“ft is the contention of the learned counsei for

“”ifficitiwei._i_nsu’rer that they’ had engaged a retired CB1 Officer to

‘d.o'””forivate investigation into the matter. In the

“investigation, it is found that it was one Rahui who was not

&/

holding driving licence was driving the car at the time of

accident. The police have concocted and implicated

Chandra Kunsar as driver in order to fasten liabiiity -1~

insurer dishonestly.

4. The insurer has not placed cred__Et>1i’e.mater_ia’l to V’

prove that one Rahul was the driv”e«rV?V”.FheV.charge:9.:shE?et”‘

filed against Chandra Kuma,r'”i.s_ a credir.tj4EeV””mater«ial’;r The
police is an independent agency, ‘E’f”:a:t is any
dishonesty or concoctio«ny:yI’1–n the inv..esti.g”atji’=otn’. conducted by

the police, the insur=er..’V”sh9til4d’fr’j’.-hyaviei,ch–ailenged the final

report in’.tVh’e’Vway of getting a parallel

investig’atVio’n done’hy_itn.e”pr’i:rate agency. The insurer could

have.tai<en'"'le_gal_stepsto contest the charge–sheet with

' V"=.tAl1§.r.,hlg,.her~-.authori't'y'"'oVr to invoke jurisdiction of this Court

filed against Chandra Kumar quashed on

thelgroVu.nd€–.V.t'hat Rahul did not hold the licence and was

drivin'gV__t1he car. it is unacceptable to contend that on the

of the report of a private agency to hold Rahul was

___driving the car. When it is not proved that Chandra Kumar

%/

was not the driver, the insurer cannot avoid iiabiiity and

cannot aiso invoke the right of recovery from the OWREFT'.Eh'-."_"'~.,_

that view of the matter, the appeai fiied by the oizi;lVner"ViéVj'—I: -1~

aiiowed. The insurer has to pay the iiabiiity».

S. The statutory amountin de'p.QS:t_in this_-v_ia'ppeai'

is directed to be refunded to the

_sac*

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *