Back
2009 Supreme(Kar) 413
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. JAGANNATHAN
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Versus
B.C. Kumar & Another
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 3475 of 2008 (MVC)
Date of Judgment : 30-06-2009
For the Petitioner:O. Mahesh, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1,
V.N. Madhava Reddy, R2, K.L. Srinivas, Advocates.
Headnote:MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 - Sections 168 & 173: [V. Jagannathan, J] Appeal by Insurance company - Plea of guilt by the driver and conviction in the Criminal Case - Can the plea of guilt by the Driver become the sole criterion for allowing the claim petition by the M.A.C.T. - A case of Insurance company disputing the very factum of Accident - Sustainability of the award passed by the M.A.C.T. - Held, The M.A.C.T. should not and ought not to place sole reliance on the judgment of the Criminal Court while considering the issue of the factum of the accident and the consequent negligence, as stated in the claim petition filed before the Tribunal. But, the Tribunal will have to assess the evidence before it independently of any finding of the Criminal Court on the question of the driver pleading guilty. At the most, the circumstance of the driver pleading guilty may be considered as one of the pieces of evidence to support the case of the claimant. But, the Tribunal should not place implicit reliance only on the circumstance of the driver having pleaded guilty before the Criminal Court and such an approach by the Tribunal will be not only an one sided approach but, at the same time, there is every likelihood of the pleading of guilt by a driver before the Criminal Court having been obtained by adopting various methods so as to ensure that the claimant succeeds before the M.A.C.T. in getting compensation. Further, There has been spate of cases wherein false claims have been made before the claims Tribunal and false implications are also on the increase. The M.A.C.Ts are constituted not only to allow the claim petitions which are genuine in nature but, at the same time, the Tribunals also will have to keep in view that compensation should not be awarded mechanically in every case and to accept the case of the claimant as if all that the claimant says about the accident and the injuries is a truthful one. Merely because a claimant in a particular case comes out with the evidence that the driver of the vehicle is convicted on his pleading guilty, the Tribunal should not go by the plead guilty factor alone, but it is required to appreciate the evidence before it from every angle and if there is a good reason to question the very case of the claimant or doubt the very manner of the accident, in such cases, the Tribunal will have to view the factor of pleading guilty along with the entire evidence placed before it and make an assessment of the whole situation.
Miscellaneous First Appeal filed under Section 173 (1) of the M.V. Act against the judgment and award dated 5.2.2008 passed in M.V.C. No. 1077/2006 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & J.M.F.C. & M.A.C.T., Srirangapatna, awarding compensation of Rs. 1,86,480/- with interest at 6 % p.a. from the date of petition till realization.
The driver pleads guilty before the Criminal Court and he is convicted. Can that plea of guilt by the driver become the sole criterion for allowing the claim petition by the M.A.C.T. when the evidence placed before it raises serious doubts as to the very factum of accident itself? This is the question that has cropped up in this appeal upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties.
2. In this appeal by the Insurance Company, the main ground urged is that the injuries sustained by the claimant on account of the hitting a road –side tree on Bannerghatta road has been transformed into a case of accident , involving the vehicle insured with the appellant herein, having dashed to the claimant’s vehicle on Pandavapura-Srirangapatna road. The pith and substance of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel Shri O. Mahesh for the appellant-Insurance Company is that the claimant succeeded in getting compensation from the M.A.C.T. by converted a self-accident into an accident involving the vehicle insured with the appellant and the M.A.C.T. accepted the claimant’s case and also based its conclusion solely on the driver of the vehicle insured with the appellant, having pleaded guilty before the criminal court.
3. To elaborate a little further, the facts in brief are that R-1 B.C. Kumar filed a claim petition before the M.A.C.T. at Srirangapatna claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him and, according to the claimant, the said injuries were caused when the motorcycle bearing No. KA-Q-1620 came in a rash and negligent manner being driven by the driver concerned and dashed to the claimant, who was waiting near Ganapathi Temple on Pandavapura-Srirangapatna road. The accident, according to the claimant, occurred on 27.6.2006 at 12.00 noon. To support the said stand taken in the claim petition, the claimant let in evidence and produced documents as per Exs.P-1 to P-23 out of which EX.P-2 is the copy of the F.I.R., Ex.P-3 is the copy of the charge-sheet, EX.P-4 is the wound certificate, EX.P-5 is the crime details form, and Ex.P-6 is the I.M.V. report.
4. The appellant Insurance Company also examined one witness as R.W.1 and relied on the documents EX.R-1, which is the evidence of R.W.1 by way of an affidavit, EX.R-2, letter of authorisation, ExR-3, copy of the M.L.C. register extract, and Ex.R-4, the insurance policy issued by it.
5. The learned Presiding Officer of the M.A.C.T., after appreciating the evidence let in by the parties, answered issue No.1 concerning the factum of accident and the consequent injuries in favour of the claimant by holding that the claimant had proved that the accident occurred on 27.6. 2006 at 12.00 noon on Pandavapura-Srirangapatna road when the motorcycle insured with the appellant herein dashed to the claimant and the claim petition was allowed by awarding a sum of Rs.1,86,480/-.
6. The Insurance Company has questioned the award of the M.A.C.T. basically on the aspect of the very accident itself, by contending that the accident never happened in the manner and at the time and place as put forward by the claimant but, on the other hand, it was a false case in the sense, the claimant dashed to a road-side tree on Bannerghatta road, but later got the whole story built up by projecting the case, that he was injured on account of the vehicle insured with the appellant hitting him on Pandavapura-Srirangapatna road. As such, the false case filed by the claimant ought to have been taken note by the M.A.C.T. and the claim petition ought to have been dismissed.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, in order to substantiate his argument
