AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.N. Satyanarayana, J—The second respondent - insurer in MVC. No. 5004/2006 on the file of MACT, Bengaluru, has come up in this appeal challenging the finding of tribunal in holding that autorickshaw bearing registration No. KA-02/2356 owned by first respondent and insured with second respondent before tribunal is responsible in causing injuries to Subramani S/o. Narayanappa resulting in his death subsequently.
Brief facts leading to this appeal are as under;
"The claim petition in MVC. No. 5004/2006 was filed on 12.8.2006 by one Subramani S/o. Narayanappa seeking compensation for the injuries said to have suffered in a road traffic accident dated 19.11.2005 at about 8.00 am. It is stated that the accident has taken place while he was travelling in autorickshaw bearing registration No. KA-02/2356 belonging to first respondent and insured with second respondent. The said Subramani died on 1.11.2006 i.e., during the pendency of claim petition in MVC. No. 5004/2006. Subsequently, his widow, children and parents came on record as claimants 1 to 6 in the amended claim petition. The case of petitioners in the amended claim petition is that on 19.11.2005 at about 8.00 am., deceased Subramani while travelling in aforesaid autorickshaw along with his father Narayanappa met with an accident resulting in serious injuries to him. Immediately after the accident he was provided first-aid at local hospital, thereafter shifted to NIMHANS, where he was inpatient till 20.11.2005. Subsequently, on the advice of doctors at NIMHANS he was shifted to Victoria Hospital, where he was inpatient from 20.11.2005 to 29.11.2005. It is stated that injuries suffered in the aforesaid accident is the cause for death of Subramani, which has taken place on 1.11.2006. In the proceedings before tribunal claimants produced copy of the complaint which is registered as FIR as Ex. P1, wound certificate as Ex. P2 and other documents from Exs. P3 to P11. However, they did not produce post mortem report of deceased Subramani to establish that his death is due to injuries suffered in road traffic accident dated 19.11.2005."
In the proceedings before tribunal, the first claimant in amended petition was examined as P.W. 1, who is widow of deceased Subramani. Another witness is Dr. B.R. Ramesh, who is said to have treated Subramani at Victoria hospital was examined as P.W. 2 to demonstrate that death of Subramani could be linked to injuries suffered in the aforesaid road traffic accident. Based on the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence available on record, the tribunal allowed the claim petition awarding compensation to claimants in a sum of Rs. 4,87,000/- payable with interest at 6% pa., from the date of petition till date of payment of entire amount. The second respondent insurer being aggrieved by the quantum as well as saddling liability to pay compensation on it, has come up in this appeal. The grounds urged are that, the claim petition is false. The documents relied upon by the claimants are concocted and fabricated with assistance of police. Though this was brought to the notice of tribunal, the same are pushed under the carpet and claim petition is allowed as if claim is genuine. To substantiate the grounds of appeal, learned counsel for the appellant would bring to the notice of this Court, first of the documents Ex. P1- FIR, which is registered on 23.2.2006 at 6.30 pm., with reference to an accident, which has taken place on 19.11.2005 at 8.00 am. The injured Subramani was taken to NIMHANS initially and thereafter he was admitted to Victoria Hospital initially on 20.11.2005. In the records of Victoria Hospital the injuries suffered is shown as in RTA. However, when he was taken to NIMHANS on 19.11.2005, at the time of his admission, the reason given for injuries suffered by Subramani is ''fall while trying to get into a running autorickshaw at Kolur village near the house of injured at 8.30 am''. The complaint regarding alleged accident is lodged with police after 97 days by his father Narayanappa. In the complaint, it is stated that the accident has taken place while they were travelling in autorickshaw bearing registration No. CNT 8766. In the complaint, the name of autorickshaw driver is shown as Bala @ Balu @ Baluraju Naidu. However, the subsequent police records would indicate that there was further statement by injured Subramani (who subsequently died) and his father Narayanappa stating that number of vehicle, which was involved in causing accident is autorickshaw bearing registration No. KA-02/2356 instead of CNT 8766 as stated in the complaint. Curiously, the further statement of both Subramani, the original claimant and Narayanappa does not bear the date or signature of the parties. However, it can safely be presumed that it should be anywhere prior to 4.4.2006, for the reason that panchanama which was drawn on that day would refer to the changed new number, which is said to have given by injured Subramani (subsequently deceased) and his father. Based on this, charge sheet is filed on 12.7.2006 as if accident is caused by autorickshaw bearing registration No. KA-02/2356. Incidentally, the driver who is said to have caused the accident as per charge sheet is one Gangadhar and not Bala @ Balu @ Balurajunaidu as stated in the compliant.
With aforesaid anomalies in complaint, charge sheet and various other police documents have come into place. This Court is unable to understand how the tribunal could believe that original claimant Subramani has suffered injures in a road traffic accident dated 19.11.2005 involving autorickshaw bearing registration No. KA-02/2356. The manner in which complaint is registered after 97 days, subsequently the same being altered on further statement, based on which police documents are built, would clearly indicate manipulation at all levels in this proceedings. Incidentally, the owner of second autorickshaw, who is said to be Balachander was available at the time of panchanama, which has taken place on 4.4.2006, thereby indicating that he was also involved in the manipulation. Though the name of Balachander was shown as fourth witness in the charge sheet, in the proceedings before tribunal he stayed away from the court and the person, who is shown as owner of vehicle involved in the accident is one Channappa, who files statement in a most convenient manner, where he neither admits the accident nor deny the same. In the objections statement he would reiterate the petition averments and would state that he deny the same. He further states that claim is subject to proof of accident and that his vehicle is covered by insurance. This is the normal practice in filing objections statement, in cases where vehicle is planted to favour the injured or the family members of deceased. This particular proceedings is in no way different from them. Most surprising thing in this proceedings is, when all these documents are available on record and the manner in which manipulation is done by claimants is brought to the notice of tribunal, the tribunal has completely turned a blind eye to the same and it seems to be more concerned about the claimants than looking into manipulation resorted to by police and claimants.
In this proceedings, in the entire pleadings and evidence, there is nothing on record to show that injuries suffered by original claimant Subramani was in a road traffic accident involving autorickshaw bearing registration No. KA-02/2356. Further, there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the injuries suffered in alleged accident dated 19.11.2005, for which claimant has taken treatment only up to 29.11.2005, is the cause for his death after one year i.e., on 1.11.2006. Curiously, the body of Subramani was not subjected to post mortem to ascertain about the cause for his death. In the absence of acceptable medical reason for his death, how the tribunal could presume that he died because of the injuries suffered in the accident, is an enigma in itself. In any event, there is handy work of claimants, doctor and police in supporting the widow, children and parents of deceased Subramani in pursuing the false claim petition which was already filed by Subramani in MVC. No. 5004/2006 to seek compensation for his subsequent death.
On going through the entire judgment, this Court is convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that the Presiding Officer of MACT, Bengaluru, who decided MVC. No. 5004/2006 has deliberately and conveniently turned a blind eye to all the documents, which indicate the fraud committed by claimants for securing compensation at the hands of insurer. This conduct of judicial officer is highly deplorable and the same is required to be brought to the notice of Administrative Judge under whom he is presently functioning as judge.
In the result, the appeal filed by insurer is allowed. The judgment and award dated 12.2.2009 passed in MVC. No. 5004/2006 on the file of MACT, Bengaluru, is set aside. While doing so, this court would direct the registry to place a copy of this judgment before the Administrative judge within whose jurisdiction the Presiding Officer, Sri. K. Amaranarayana, who was functioning as VI Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, as on 12.2.2009, is presently working.
In view of the appeal being allowed, the amount in deposit is ordered to be refunded to appellant.