High Court Karnataka High Court

The Divisional Manager vs Shri Jameelhemad S/O Liyakat … on 21 January, 2009

Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Shri Jameelhemad S/O Liyakat … on 21 January, 2009
Author: B.S.Patil
 .:shziTs1a;e;1:h& A.Mam1ekar,



% A  =. R!i Zatpat NagarAnao1. Belgaum.
   __'The Diviaiona}. Manager

MFA.No.2I243/2008

1N THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAI)

DATED THIS THE 21%'? DAY OF JANUARY 
BEFORE % 'V   u
THE 1-i0N'BLE MR.JUsTIc:§f. B.s.Pa.'m'.'j;j  
u.1r.A.1Io.a1fi2.' :2o(S_$B_ ,z f:  M u

BETWEEN:

The Divisional Manager,
National Insurance Co. Ltd..,  _     
Ramdcv Galli, Be@um. v  '_  _ V  .__ _  ..APPELLANT

(By Sri Laxman B.Mannoddar',AV_A§iv.:')'V   3

AND:

1. Shri Jameclahemafi, 
S/0 Liya1rat~Hu'a'sci:n; ..  
Age: _ 40,  'Bt,1Vsi11cs-_s,' '  "
R/9: Zatpat Celgny, Angel,

 {cg-::"h!aj0;V',  Business,
'R/'G2 H.NC*§39:/16, Upasngar, -

nshri Shékh Nabisab Shaikh Maheboob,
2 Age; Major, Ooc: Budmess,

' United India Inst:-ranoe'Co. Ltd.,
Mazuti Gem, Belgaum. ..RESPONDENTS

MFA.No.21243/2008
2

This appml is filed under Section l’?’3(1) of M.vV-…_Act
against the judgment and award dated 0′?’.06.2()(}8
MVC No.2’540/ 2005 on the fik: of the Presiding

Track Court-I as Member, Addl. MACIX, Belgaum,__ :_a”
compensation of Rs.14,’750/– with interest @ 6% -pja.

date of petition till deposit.

This apml is coming on for

delivered the: fo11owi:ug:- _

()1. There is a delay of 23 daysv’Vii12.:fiIi;).g Before
issuing notice on the £21′ delay, I
have heard the learned the.’ regarding

02. – Insurance Company is

directed the negligence against

S V the “anus Hggnda Scooter.

_ ti ~–~ respondent no.1 hcrcin mat with an

a££§<:fncié;;{ when he was riding his Hero Honda

_m0toit–ycI::;j" ' registration No.GA–02/Z 9408. The

" " 'T '0<;c11rred when a Kine' tic Honda scooter bcarmg'

{ggggsmlaon No.GA-02/L 4335 comm' g from the opposite

dashw sigma' st the Han; Honda motomycic driven by

Lvfhe claimant. The ciajat fell dawn and sustained head

injury and injuries ta other parts of the body. H: was shfied

Bf.

MP’A.No.21243/2008
3

to Goa Medical College and Hospital for treatment. On the

report submitted by the Head Constable, a case was registcmd.

04. The injured claimant movw the Ciaims

compensation alicging that the acckient thé’

acfimnablc negligence on the pan offhc u

Honda Scooter. Before the Ciaimg hi

examined himself as P.W.1 amipne

He pmduccd and marked Tiipugh the

respondent ~– insurance the it did not

lead any evidence gxcept ‘bf the insurance

Poiicy.

05. The the evidence on mcord

V. the due to the nzgligcncc on the

it akso found that the claimant had

to the accident by his negligcnm. Based

V on evidence, the ‘Fr.ihunal quammficd’ thc

payable at Rs.29,50€)/–~. As it held that the

was Iiabk: to an extent of 50%, the appellant

T ‘ inémanoc Company who is: the insurer of the Kfiactic Honda

” Scooter was saddhd with the Iiabflity to pay a sum sf

Rs.14,750]— along with the interest at 9% p.a. from the date of

W(

MFA. No.2 E243/2008
4

petitian tiil its deposit. In this appeal, the ap}*sc}_Eaj;1t.x –

Insurance Company is aggrieved by the

negligcnce on the part of the x’is:1::j1j”9_f

scooter.

O6. Learned counsel for mg a§’}mHafi{-Ins1:- _”_

submits that the FIR am; thefi-.pa°;¢ “c£_the “H::%_.@onstahLc
disclose that the the negligence
on the part of ‘ motorcycle and
therefore ¢z’.s.i:<;A¥§.'v'i't'1vV_vf§s¥':§;}r:ning 50% Iiabiiity
on the

07. ®unscl for the appellant and

on cageful gr mc*:§ateria1s on record including the

– find,-:,,’f}%jg§%As untied nihzanai, I find that the ‘l’rib1maI has

:§vig1cncc of the claimant who has stated that

1112′ :3; mcident he became unconscious and he

. Vwas fiat position to bdge any compiam t and in that

Vibe complaint came to be lodged by the Peiioe Head

He has further explaincd as to 13,0175’ the accident

” In the absence of any other rebuttal cvidanoe led by

u A. the Insuxance Company particularly in View of its omission to

lead the evidence of the rider of the Kinetic Honda scooter, the

M

MFA. No.21243,12O08

Tribunal has persuazicd itself to mean: a

accident occurmd due to the fault of both the

rider of the Kinefic Home scooter. In such »

cannot be said that the findings

perverse or ilicgal. TI:1c:reforc, .E do nbifind any L.

appeal. Hence, the same deservffiér

08. Since the appeal :.o”1i”V:1 x.*;Ax:it.s, the application
filed sac.-king Coniifkilafiogg. bf

Sd/-»
Judge

FKS