Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
P.G.M. PATIL, J.
Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co Ltd - Appellant
Versus
Mallikarjun Shivappa Sunagar - Respondent
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 102130 of 2014, 102246 of 2014
Decided On : 24-06-2019
Delay in Filing Complaint - Motor Vehicle Accident - Compensation - [DELAY IN FILING COMPLAINT] - [MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT] - [Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166] - The court considered the delay in filing the complaint and held that it cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant's case. The court also emphasized that delay in lodging the FIR should not be treated as fatal for such proceedings if the claimant has demonstrated satisfactory and cogent reasons for it. The court referred to the case of Ravi vs. Badari Narayan and others and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lakshmi Chand Vs. Reliance General Insurance to support its conclusion. The court held that the delay is not fatal and the insurer failed to establish the same by adducing cogent evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant sustained severe injuries in a motorcycle accident and sought compensation. The insurer disputed the claim, citing delay in filing the complaint and lack of evidence of damage to the motorcycle. The claimant sought enhancement of compensation, contending that his income was higher than considered by the Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the delay in filing the complaint was not fatal and the insurer failed to establish its contentions. The court also found that the claimant's income was higher than considered by the Tribunal and awarded enhanced compensation.
Issues: The main issues were the delay in filing the complaint, the dispute over the claimant's income, and the insurer's failure to establish its contentions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that delay in filing the complaint should not be treated as fatal if the claimant has demonstrated satisfactory and cogent reasons for it. The court also held that the claimant's income was higher than considered by the Tribunal and awarded enhanced compensation.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the insurer was dismissed, and the appeal filed by the claimant was partly allowed. The claimant was awarded enhanced compensation of Rs. 4,95,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till realization, in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
JUDGMENT :
P.G.M. Patil, J.
The insurer-National Insurance Company Limited and the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 08.05.2014 passed in MVC No.571/2012 by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Bailhongal have filed these appeals.
2. It is the case of the claimant before the Tribunal that on 02.01.2012 at about 2.30. p.m., the petitioner was proceeding towards Naganur from Bailhongal on the motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-24/L-9786 as a pillion rider, which was driven by respondent No.1. When the said motorcycle was proceeding on Bailhongal-Belgaum road, the rider of the motorcycle drove the same in a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and without observing humps on the road, moved the motorcycle in the same speed and made to fall the petitioner from the motorcycle. Due to the said accident, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries on back, left hand wrist, fracture of spine, abrasion over root of thumb of left side, abrasion over left index finger, fracture and dislocation of D6, D7 and other injuries to all over the body. Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to District hospital, Belgaum, wherein he took first aid treatment and then he was shifted to KLES hospital, Belgaum, wherein he was admitted as inpatient and has undergone conservative treatment and CT scan was done and he was discharged on 03.01.2012. After discharge from the said hospital, he was admitted in Lake View Hospital, Belgaum as inpatient for 20 days and took medical treatment for the said injuries. During the said period, the petitioner undergone major operation to spine and inserted steel rectangular plate. So far, the petitioner has spent Rs. 2,50,000/- towards medical expenses, hospital bills, medical bills and conveyance etc. Prior to the accident, the petitioner was doing mason work and centering work, thereby earning Rs. 10,000/- p.m. The accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 and respondent No.2-who is the insurer of the said vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/-.
3. In pursuance of notice, respondents No.1 and 2 appeared before the Tribunal. Respondent No.1 has appeared through his counsel and filed objections denying all the averments made in the petition. He has admitted that he was riding the motorcycle carefully and cautiously and it was not the fault on his part. The petitioner lost control, jumped up and fell down from the motorcycle and he has denied that the accident was due to his rash and negligent driving. In case of any liability, it may be fastened on respondent No.2, who is the insurer of the motorcycle and at that he was holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the motorcycle.
4. Respondent No.2 has appeared through its advocate and filed objections denying all the averments made in the petition. He denied the manner of accident. He further contended that on 02.01.2012, there was no accident by the user of the motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-24/L-9786 and that the petitioner has sustained injuries in some other accident and was admitted in District Hospital, Beglaum and even in KLE hospital, Belgaum and then in Lake View Hospital, Belgaum. The petitioner colluding with the owner of the motorcycle and Bailhongal police, filed false complaint and subsequently termed it as R.T.A. colluding with Medical Officials in the said hospital. He has denied that the petitioner was aged about 20 years and was earning about Rs. 10,000/- p.m. There is a delay of 2 days in lodging the complaint. Therefore, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed issues.
6. In support of his claim, the claimant was examined as PW1 and one witness as PW2 and got marked 15 documents as
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
