AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.L. Manjunath, J.—In these two appeals, the appellant-insurance company is questioning the legality and correctness of the findings of the MACT, Bengaluru dated 15.03.2014 in MVC Nos. 2250 & 2251/2011, fixing the liability on the appellant-insurance.
Two claim petitions were lodged claiming compensation on account of the accident occurred on 06.10.2010, at about 6.15 a.m., on account of head on collision between two wheeler bearing registration No. KA-03-EH-5712, in which the deceased was riding and a goods vehicle bearing registration No. AP-03-U-7595 on Tiruttani-Chittoor Road. The claimants in MVC No. 2250/2011 are the widow, minor children and the aged mother of the deceased, Jai Shankar, who was riding the two-wheeler. The claimant in MVC No. 2251/2011 was the pillion rider and was also injured in the accident. The owner of the goods vehicle did not contest the matter and was placed ex parte.
The appellant-insurance company contested the matter contending that the goods vehicle was never involved in the accident and on account of the collusion between the driver, the owner of the vehicle and the claimants, the goods vehicle was falsely implicated.
In order to prove their respective contentions, in all five witnesses were examined. Amongst them, PW-1, Smt. V. Geetha is the widow of the deceased, Jai Shankar. PW-2, Sendamarakannan is the claimant in MVC No. 2251/2011. PW-3 to PW-5 are independent witnesses. They relied upon Exhibits-P1 to P24. On behalf of the insurance company, an Investigating Officer by name Sri. K.L. Venu, was examined as RW-1 and he relied upon R1 to R4.
The Tribunal on considering the evidence let-in by the parties, came to the conclusion that though FIR does not indicate the vehicle number of the goods vehicle, later the same has been investigated by the police and thereafter charge-sheet was filed against the driver of the goods vehicle. The driver and the owner of the goods vehicle have not disputed the accident. Therefore, relying upon the charge-sheet and other materials, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the goods vehicle and based on the evidence let-in by the parties, assessed the income of the deceased Jai Shankar and awarded a sum of Rs. 28,55,700/-, as compensation to the widow, children and aged mother, since he was working in army.
A sum of Rs. 24,00,000/- has been awarded to the claimant in MVC No. 2251/2011 based on the injuries sustained by him and disability caused to him. Therefore, these two appeals are filed by the appellant-insurance company questioning the liability foisted on it.
In these two appeals, the main contention of the appellant-insurance company is that the liability saddled on the appellant-insurance company has to be set-aside on the following grounds:
According to them the vehicle number was not mentioned in FIR and that the criminal case registered against the driver of the goods vehicle has ended in acquittal and that there is a collusion between the owner of the vehicle and the claimants and an adverse inference has to be drawn against the claimants for not examining the Investigating Officer to show under what circumstances the charge-sheet was filed against the driver of the goods vehicle and its owner.
Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the only point to be considered by us in this appeal is:
"Whether the finding of the Tribunal on the question of negligence requires to be interfered?"
Admittedly, the accident is not in dispute. According to the appellant-insurance company the death of Jai Shankar and the injuries sustained by the claimant in MVC No. 2251/2011 are not disputed. According to him, the accident was not caused due to the involvement of the goods vehicle in question, which is owned by one by Ansar Pasha who has insured the vehicle with the appellant. The main contention of the appellant counsel is that there is a collusion between Ansar Pasha, the owner of the vehicle and the claimants. In order to prove the said contention, for the reasons best known to the appellant-insurance company, no evidence is let-in by the appellant.
The evidence of RW-1, L. Venu is of no consequence to come to the conclusion that there is a collusion between Ansar Pasha and the claimants. Admittedly, the deceased Jai Shankar was working in Army and he was a permanent resident of Bangalore so also the claimant in the connected matter. The accident has taken place in Palmaner Road of Chittoor district of Andhra Pradesh and the owner of the goods vehicle is no way connected with the claimants. There was no difficult for the appellant-insurance company to prove the nexus between the owner of the goods vehicle and the claimants. Without producing any material to show that the vehicle has been wrongly implicated, the appellant is trying to contend that the liability saddled on it has to be exonerated.
According to Shri. A.N. Krishnaswamy, the claimants are required to examine the Investigating Officer to show the involvement of the vehicle in question. So far as this point is concerned, the burden whether the vehicle is involved or not is on the insurance company which is disputing the involvement of the vehicle, because the owner of the vehicle is not disputing the accident or the involvement of the goods vehicle, there was no difficulty for the appellant-insurance company to take summons to the driver and examine him as its witness and moreover it was for the insurance company to prove that the investigation has not been properly conducted and that the owner of the vehicle has wrongly implicated the vehicle. When the appellant-insurance company has failed to discharge its initial burden on it and trying to contend that the claimants in collusion with the owner of the goods vehicle are falsely foisting the liability cannot be considered by this court. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal on the involvement of the goods vehicle has to be confirmed.
In view of the aforesaid finding, we do not find any merit in these appeals. Accordingly, the appeals stands dismissed.
Consequently, the application in I.A. 1/2014, seeking condonation of delay also stands rejected.
The amount in deposit in both the appeals, is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal.