Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 1367
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Nataraj Rangaswamy, J.
United India Insurance Co, Ltd Davanagere Branch - Appellant
Versus
V. Rathnamma - Respondent
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 9417 of 2010
Decided On : 05-10-2020
B.C. Seetharama Rao, Advocate, D.P. Mahesh, Advocate
The court affirmed the principle that in the absence of clear evidence against the involvement of the insured vehicle in an accident, the liability to pay compensation may be upheld based on the available evidence, such as the charge sheet filed against the driver of the offending vehicle.
Headnote:
Liability - Insurance - Involvement of Vehicle in Accident
Fact of the Case:
The insurer appealed against the liability imposed to pay compensation for an accident involving a vehicle insured by it. The claimant's husband was injured and later succumbed to the injuries in an accident caused by a vehicle bearing a specific registration number.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence, including the FIR and the charge sheet filed against the driver of the offending vehicle, indicated the involvement of the insured vehicle in the accident. The insurer's lack of private investigation and the absence of clear evidence against the involvement of the vehicle led the court to uphold the liability to pay compensation.
Issues: The main issue was the involvement of the insured vehicle in the accident, contested by the insurer due to lack of eyewitnesses and damages to the offending vehicle.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the charge sheet filed against the driver of the offending vehicle and the absence of clear evidence against its involvement, leading to the affirmation of the liability on the insurer to pay compensation.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court upheld the liability of the insurer to pay compensation for the accident.
JUDGMENT
Nataraj Rangaswamy, J. - This appeal is filed by the insurer challenging the liability imposed on it to pay compensation, on the ground that the vehicle insured by it was not involved in the accident in question.
2. In the claim petition, it is stated that the husband of the claimant who was riding the motor cycle was injured in an accident caused by a vehicle bearing registration number KA-06-A-4731. The husband of the claimant later succumbed to the injuries. The Tribunal after consideration of the evidence on record had awarded compensation of a sum of Rs.4,96,300/-. The Tribunal had noticed that the insurer had insured the vehicle bearing registration No.KA-06-A-4731, and thus fastened the liability to pay compensation on the insurer/appellant herein.
3. The insurer in this appeal contended that the involvement of the vehicle in question was doubtful due to the fact that there were no eye witnesses to the accident. The claimants did not examine any person in proof of the accident. However, in the FIR, it is mentioned that the accident was caused by an unknown vehicle. The appellant also relied upon the IMV report to contend that there were no damages to the offending vehicle, while the damages were profound in so far as the motor cycle that was ridden by the deceased.
4. It is noticed that the insurer had examined RW1 - the police inspector who investigated the case and who filed the charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration No.KA-06-A-4731. RW1 clearly stated that after investigation it was found that the vehicle in question was involved in the accident and therefore, the charge sheet was filed against the driver of the Mini Lorry. RW2 was the official employed with the insurer. He deposed that he did not know whether the vehicle in question was involved in the accident or not. He deposed that the insurer had not conducted any private investigation regarding the involvement of the vehicle in question. Since, there is no clear evidence that the vehicle in question was not involved in the accident and it is more probable that the vehicle was involved, in view of the charge sheet filed against the driver of the offending lorry. Hence, the Tribunal was justified in directing the compensation to be payable by the insurer.
There is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.
