IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS ON THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER
BEFORE
THE HONELE MR. JUSTICE 1'
M.F.A. No. 10393 OF 2o07GIm'fI.O[ I"
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER, -
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO-
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, _
KUMARA KRUPA ROAD, BANGALORE"
NOWREPRESENTED BY =
REGIONAL MANAG_ER,_ I ~
NATIONAL
REGIONAL
SUBHARAM CO1\/IPLEX, 144, M§'G.ROAD,f.
BANGALORE:560O.O'D1.*1:
_ . . _' :APPELLAN'I'
{BY SRI.A.S.K.RISHN_!'--_\ SWAMY;*~AEV.)
AND:
V1,; ~.3ANI,jI£IAN'1"HA .
S/O. GAOVIINOAI-:PA,
'ANOWIIAGEDAEIOLIT 67 YEARS
R,/O, PALYA,
VENKATAPURA POST,
PAVAGAI1A~TAjLUK, TUMKUR DIST.
".__f{;R.NAGA}%3tHUSHANA REDDY,
.S,/0;KR1SHNA REDDY,
E NQW_AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.
O. DEVALAKERE, K.T.HALLI POST,
.,,I?AVAGADA TALUK.
*{EIf SRI.S.K.VENKATA REDDY, AF/. FOR R-1}
: RESPONDENTS
MFA FILED U/S 173(1) 02? Mv ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED: 18.04.2007 PASSED IN MVC NO. 591;’2005
ON THE FILE or ADDITIONAL MACT, MADHUGIR1. AWARBENDQ A
COMPENSATION OF RS.2,03,8IO/- INTEREST AT 8% PQAJ
THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMIssioi\H*:~iig°3.. DAY«,. fm:I%:-~ V.
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWINCS:
JUDGM.:t«:N’r
Challenge by the appellant the’
judgment and award dated’ ONO391/2005
on the file of the Additional .C].aims Tribunal,
Madhugiri on the ;i.;r¢g;::d of iisibiiity = claim.
2. ti’i’eVVV–inr1pugned judgment and
award has awarded of Rs.2,03,810.00.
3. “IE_{3:'<';I-'A22. isd the_VVF1IR.V' The vehicle number mentioned in
the f§£3;j'i:6fi](H"8580. However, without there being any
basia,~.newV'\feh.1cie"'i\E0.KA–06/D3434 has bee implicated in
the case". n "s'I'ribuna1 without examining the same, has
liability on the appellant and therefore the
"appeal seeking for setting aside the impugned
'V A jidgrnent and award.
4. The accident occurred on 14.7.2003. According to
the complainant he has been taken to the hospitai
Rammohan Reddy and S P Venkatareddy
hospitai his statement has been ],”€>COi”d.e’d”.L
Constable by name D Huchaiah. In
Hero Honda motor cycle is mentio’r1:e’d, Itis. men_t_ioried”that it’
was driven in a rash dashed
against the claimant and from the spot
leaving the motor for offences
punishable to be registered.
Panchanan:ia”VE§:.”i24:V are drawn. EXP4
discloses But in the Mahazar
Ei<.P5 14.8.2003 a month after the
by Sri H Siddaiah, Head
Ex.P5 reveals the truth that a false
oiaim e. madevdagainst the vehicle KA–06/L–3434 for the
Vethatddearlier vehicle KA–16/H–'8580 was not insured.
xiearned counsel refers EX.P7 IMV report wherein at
. No.2 requisition has been referred on 22.8.2003 and
there is a delay in sending the requisition. No damage to the
<
vehicle is noticed in the report. Therefore, the learned
counsel submits that there is a false claim and in the ab'sen.ce
of examining the I O. or producing cogent and A
evidence, the claim petition ought to
5. On the contrary, the learriecl counsel
submits that insurance has not any eigamining
the Investigating Officer :.t1je:eharge’isheet. The
charge sheet is filednafter fF’W–l has stated
in the furnished the
vehicle the complainant was
not knowinlgnthe “in a state of injury he was
shifted to hospital not in a position to furnish the
correct nurnber…_a.nd the eye witnesses who have been
in :yFlTR-.have given the present vehicle number.
5….vHence there inconsistency in the claim. In support of
-efjvhissubniissitsn, the learned counsel relied upon judgment of
Tf’thi’ef in M F A No.7493/2007 {MVJ between Bajaj Allianz
Insurance Co. Ltd., vs., SInt.Lakshmamma 8: others
:ii«-..Tn’disposed of on 25.9.2007 where this court has held that
unless the charge sheet is challenged, it has to be accepted.
i
6. The records do not disclose the permission
the appellant under Section 170 of the M V Act.
said factor is immaterial in View of theifacttthat ‘lnsnrance
Company has challenged its liability.
7. On the basis of the complaint rnade:
Crime No.79 / 2003 is the ‘H1*id’er of the
vehicle KA–16/H–858O Heropkpnehaei’tlrhete:4e3:ei_e.. The FIR has
been forwarded to” Ma;gistrate.'”‘ 3f’here…V.should have been
some reference in charge’.'[‘fsbeet as to the involvement of
the vehicle ether mentioned in the FIR. There is
no complaint eiicept. llonlevnfiade at the earliest point of time
irnplica.te«vehicle No.KA–06/L–3434. EX.P4 is
panchanama drawn on 19.7.2003 about 5
‘l5….c1ays thevlelaticident where vehicle number has been
-.l.l.C’_jf:.efer.red as”lviA–O6/L–3434. The rnahazar has been drawn on
that is, one month thereafter for which 1.0. D
. Head Constable is not examined. Ex.P7 the IMV
discloses no damages to any parts of the vehicle.
There may be reason that afterithe accident, the vehicle must
have been repaired. To that extent, no evidence is produced.
The claimant has not fulfilled his duty in adducing cogent
and corroborative evidence in support of his claim.
8. Whenever a contention is raised as
implication of the vehicle, necessary etfoiftphasllto’ by”
the parties to place linking materials
vehicle mentioned in the c1aini–.p’etition” is ‘inv-Q1v.ed=V in the’?
accident. Though it is a rnatter.–cfriygllitp of th’c-clalimant to
claim compensation, if a false_1’clainii’ -it is a fraud on
the Court. Thererefe. or ANDHRA
PRADESH RAO, (Am 2005 sc 3110) it
is held in Paraé’-3}) as is well–known vitiates every
s~ol~en1n ai1d–..=..I.ustice never dwell together. Fraud is
a letter or words, which includes the other
t it person’olrlauthority to take a definite determinative stand as a
–4.l.l’_j:r.es’p.onse t’o__t1;he conduct of the former either by words or
It is not possible to express one way or the other as to
fraud committed in the case or otherwise. But what is the
i
concern. is that a person who approaches the Court should
not feel, fraud or falsity prevails over justice. It never should
happen. What I find from the instant case that the clair11ant
has to satisfy the Tribunal by producing
and corroborative evidence as to how the new’vehi:c_le”came in” .
the case than the one mentioned in the ‘l’l1<f3re:fcré.:"itgpisjél
case which has to be remand'ed"*~to the –fresh:f'
decision after affording opportunitylVto.both the p.arties to lead
further evidence and to produce
10. In the circurnstargilces;”the: appeal disposed of. The
matter stands 0 “claims tribunal for fresh
considerationla-fter al’fordtingll.~’2opportunity to both the parties
:_to’~l_ead and”prod’uce materials. The Tribunal is also
directed ‘-to-._talkef’coercive steps to secure the witnesses
l Since the claimant is a senior citizen aged
65 ‘years, the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the
clai-n1~.peti.tion as expeditiously as possible but not later than
threefmonths from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Both the parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on
0. 20.12.2010. The Registry is directed to forward the records
i
forthwith. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the elaim
petition without being influenced by any of the obseiV*éitio”nVs
made in the present judgment.
The amount in deposit is di1*ecte£1″‘to–be it
appellant.
akd*