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*