The High Court · 2014
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:21720 MFA No. 7392 of 2014 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7392 OF 2014 (MV) BETWEEN: …APPELLANT B. RAGHAVENDRA, S/O BORAIAH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RC OWNER OF LORRY BEARING REG: NO.KA-14-5274, VALMIKINAGAR, CHALLAKERE, NOW R/O JOGIMATTI ROAD, CHITRADURGA TOWN - 577 501. (BY SRI. B.M. SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RAVIKUMAR S/O SANJEEVAREDDY, RC.OWNER OF LORRY BEARING REG. NO.KA-16-A-8239, R/O. DARJI COLONY, 1ST CROSS, GOPALAPURA ROAD, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER SRI. RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, REGIONAL OFFICE, 1003, E-8, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN-302 022. Digitally signed by KORLAHALLI BHARATHIDEVIKRISHNACHARYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:21720 MFA No. 7392 of 2014 HC-KAR 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE,OPPOSITE, TO NANJUNDESWARA PETROL BUNK, B.D ROAD, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. …RESPONDENTS
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN Y.DEVAREDDIYAVARA, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2, SRI. ASHOK N.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:10.09.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.493/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, C.J.M AND MACT-III, CHITRADURGA, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 10th September 2014, passed by the Prl.Senior Civil Judge, C.J.M., and MACT-III, Chitradurga, (for short `Tribunal'), in MVC No.493/2013. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, on 16.04.2012, the lorry belonging to the claimant bearing registration - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:21720 MFA No. 7392 of 2014 HC-KAR No.KA-14-5274, was going from Sringeri to Udupi to deliver the poultry feeds. Near Kerekatte village in Sringeri taluk, Chikkamagalur District, due to mechanical defects, the driver of the said lorry parked the lorry on the left side of the road. At that time, a lorry bearing registration No.KA-16-A-8239 (for short, `offending lorry') came from S.K.Border side, in a rash and negligent manner and hit the front portion of lorry, which belonged to the claimant. As a result, the front portion of the lorry of the claimant was completely damaged. Claimant spent around Rs.3,12,375/- towards repair the said vehicle. It is further stated that the claimant was earning Rs.30,000/- per month from the said vehicle. During the repair period, it was in the garage, thereby he lost his earnings. With these reasons, claimant prayed to award compensation of Rs.3,12,375/-. 4. Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Respondent No.3 is the insurer of the lorry belonging to the claimant. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:21720 MFA No. 7392 of 2014 HC-KAR 5. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed their written statement denying the contentions of the claimant. Respondent No.2 denied its liability to pay the compensation on the ground of violation of terms and conditions of policy of insurance. With these reasons, it prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 6. Respondent No.3 - insurer of the lorry belonging to the claimant contended that, its liability is restricted to the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance and it was an 'act policy' and does not cover the risk of damage to the vehicle. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 7. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed the necessary issues, for its determination. 8. The claimant to prove his case, examined three witnesses as PW-1 to PW-3 and marked 35 documents as per Exs.P-1 to P-35. Respondents examined two witnesses as RW-1 and RW-2 and marked one document as Ex.R-1. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:21720 MFA No. 7392 of 2014 HC-KAR 9. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal expressed doubt regarding the very occurrence of the accident. It also held that the claimant had not produced relevant documents to prove that the vehicle was damaged and that he had spent substantial amount towards repair charges. For these reasons, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. Being aggrieved by the said findings, the claimant has preferred the present appeal. 10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the claimant as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contended that a criminal case was registered in relation to the accident in question. The concerned Investigating Officer charge sheeted the driver of the offending lorry for causing the accident. The fact of the accident is not in dispute. Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal that the very occurrence of the accident itself is doubtful, is not tenable. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:21720 MFA No. 7392 of 2014 HC-KAR He further contended that the claimant has submitted the Surveyor's report. While it is true that claimant has not produced the receipts for the repairs carried out on the vehicle, this cannot be a ground for denying the compensation. With these reasons, he prayed to allow the petition and to award compensation. 12. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the occurrence of the accident itself was denied by the respondents; However, the charge sheet and its enclosures reveal that the offending vehicle hit the front portion of the lorry belonging to the claimant; As rightly noted by the Tribunal, in that event, there are hardly chances of lorry going totally to the left side of the road; as the road towards S.K.Border is very wide. The manner in which the accident occurred, as narrated in the documents, does not supports the case of the claimant. 13. He further contended that the claimant must prove the damage caused to the vehicle; Mere producing the survey report is not sufficient; The claim petition was - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:21720 MFA No. 7392 of 2014 HC-KAR filed during the year 2013; There is no material evidence to show that the claimant had the vehicle repaired by spending the claimed amount; Without any legal evidence, the Tribunal cannot grant the compensation. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 14. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that, it was an 'act policy', therefore, respondent No.3 is not at all liable to pay compensation to the claimant towards damage of the lorry. Moreover, to claim compensation from the owner, claimant cannot file petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the appeal against respondent No.3. 15. Following points arise for my determination : (ii) Whether Tribunal is justified in disbelieving the accident as narrated in the charge sheet? (ii) Whether the Tribunal is justified in dismissing the claim petition? (ii) What order? - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:21720 MFA No. 7392 of 2014 HC-KAR Point No.1 & 2 : 16. Since both the points are interconnected, they are taken up together. PW-1 is the owner of the vehicle. He narrated the facts as stated in the claim petition. PW-2 is an eye witness to the accident in question. In his evidence, he stated that he was the cleaner of the said vehicle; On the way to S.K.Border, lorry's clutch was cut and hence it was parked on the left side of the road. Around 7.30 p.m., a lorry came from Mangaluru side and hit the front portion of the lorry belonging to the claimant. Due to the impact, the lorry belonging to the claimant fell into a ditch and was completely damaged. He stated that he witnessed the said incident. 17. In his cross-examination, PW-2 has stated that usually when a lorry hits against another lorry which is parked on the side of the road, the impacted vehicle would move backwards. He volunteered that the lorry belonging to the claimant moved backwards and thereafter, fell into - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:21720 MFA No. 7392 of 2014 HC-KAR the ditch. He lodged the complaint one day after the incident. It was suggested to him that to conceal the true facts, the complaint was deliberately lodged one day after the incident. 18. PW-3 is the Surveyor. In his evidence, he has stated the details regarding the damage caused to the vehicle and referred to the report submitted by him. In his cross-examination, he says that he saw the said lorry in the garage, but not at the spot of the incident. He also stated that the lorry was 15 years old and, considering its depreciated value, the lorry was considered as a scrap. He also denied a suggestion that just to get the compensation by the claimant, he gave false valuation report. 19. On Perusal of the records, the occurrence of the accident appears doubtful. The claimant's lorry was parked on the left side of the road. PW-2 has not stated that the offending lorry came to the wrong side and hit their lorry. It is also not the claimant's case that there - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:21720 MFA No. 7392 of 2014 HC-KAR was no space for the offending lorry to pass due to parking of their vehicle. Moreover, if the offending lorry had hit the claimant's lorry, it would have likely moved backward and not forward, then turn left and hit a tree. The photographs of the lorry taken after the alleged accident are produced by the claimant, this supports the inference that the vehicle turned to left side and hit a tree. 20. The claimant contended that, due to mechanical defects (cut of clutch plate), the driver of his lorry parked the lorry on the left side of the road. Respondent No.2 contends that due to mechanical defects, driver of the claimant's lorry lost control over his vehicle and caused the accident. As the claimant's lorry had an `Act Insurance Policy' and he know that he would not get compensation from its insurance company (Respondent No.3), the offending vehicle was falsely implicated in the accident, this cannot be ruled out. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:21720 MFA No. 7392 of 2014 HC-KAR 21. The accident was caused by a head-on-collision between the two vehicles. In that event, damage to the offending lorry must be on the right side or front side. Ex.P-4 shows that most of damages caused were to the front left side of offending lorry, which is not probable. Looking at the damage caused to both the vehicles, it appears that the offending lorry must have come in high speed and hit the claimant's lorry. Both the vehicles' front portion was badly damaged as per Ex.P-4. Very strangely, the driver of offending vehicle has not even sustained abrasion injuries. Looking at these facts, any prudent person can infer that the offending vehicle was falsely implicated to claim compensation. Claimant utterly failed to prove that the accident occurred in the manner as stated in the petition or charge sheet. 22. Even if it is considered that the said vehicle was damaged due to the collision between both vehicles, the compensation must be assessed based on the materials - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:21720 MFA No. 7392 of 2014 HC-KAR available on record. In the present case, the accident occurred on 16.04.2012 and according to the claimant, the said vehicle was repaired by spending Rs.1,87,375/-. The claim petition was filed on 13.08.2013 i.e., nearly a year. later. The claimant got assessed the damage caused to the vehicle by a Surveyor. However, the claimant has not produced any materials to prove that he had the vehicle repaired or that he spent any amount towards the same. This raises doubts as to whether the claimant actually repaired the vehicle or not. The claimant has not assigned any reasons for non-production of these documents. 23. Undisputedly, the said lorry was of 1995 model as revealed in Ex.P-10 - RC book. The contention of the insurer is that, it was an unfit vehicle as on the date of the accident. Its fitness certificate is also not available on record. 24. Looking at the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition. I do not find any reason to interfere in the said finding. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:21720 MFA No. 7392 of 2014 HC-KAR Accordingly, point Nos.1 and 2 are answered, against the claimant.
Decision
25. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The Appeal is dismissed. ii) The judgment and award dated 10.09.2014, passed in MVC.No.493/2013, by the Prl.Senior Civil Judge, CJM & MACT-III, Chitradurga, stands confirmed. Registry is directed to send back the records along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE bk : List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19