AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Ananda, J.—M.F.A. Nos. 1164/2011 and 1165/2011 are filed by Insurance Company to set aside the impugned awards. M.F.A. Nos. 2743/2011 and 2745/2011 are filed by claimants for enhancement of compensation. I have heard learned Counsel for parties.
The learned Counsel for Insurance Company has taken me through various documents to contend that insured vehicle namely Tempo traveller bearing No. KA-02-D-7192 was not involved in accident.
The learned Counsel for Insurance Company would further submit that claimants were not travelling in autorickshaw bearing No. KA-07-7554. On the other hand, claimants were proceeding on motorcycle under the influence of alcohol. They met with accident. They have subsequently implicated autorickshaw and insured vehicle to make it appear that claimant namely K. Ramesh was the driver of autorickshaw and claimant namely Suresh Babu K.M. @ Suresh was passenger of autorickshaw and insured vehicle dashed against autorickshaw.
During pendency of claim petitions, Insurance Company had made an application to amend objections statement to take up a specific contention that claimants were not travelling in autorickshaw, on the other hand, they were travelling in motorcycle. They were under the influence of alcohol. There is no nexus between alleged accident and involvement of alleged vehicle. The Tribunal accepted this application in terms of order dated 26th October, 2009 and written statement filed by Insurance Company (second-respondent before Tribunal) was accordingly amended.
It is noticed from order sheet that Tribunal had framed issues on 27th July, 2009. After written statement was amended in terms of the order dated 26th October, 2009, Tribunal should have framed a specific issue regarding contentions taken up by Insurance Company by way of amendment.
Under Rule 249 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short, ''the Rules''), the Claims Tribunal in passing orders shall record concisely in a judgment the findings on catch of the issues framed and reasons for such findings and make an award specifying the amount of compensation to be paid by the insurers and also person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid.
Under Rule 245 of the Rules, provisions of Order 14 Rules 4 and 5 of C.P.C. are made applicable to proceedings before Claims Tribunal.
The learned Counsel for claimants referring to cross-examination of claimants by learned Counsel for Insurance Company would submit that learned Counsel for Insurance Company has suggested to claimants that they were travelling in autorickshaw and accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of autorickshaw.
As already stated, after amendment of written statement, Tribunal has not framed a specific issue regarding involvement of autorickshaw or motorcycle in the accident. In the circumstances, suggestions put to claimants during cross-examination by learned Counsel for Insurance Company cannot cure procedural irregularities committed by the Tribunal. In view of specific defence raised by learned Counsel for Insurance Company, the Tribunal should have framed an additional issue to resolve real controversy between parties. The Tribunal should have called upon Insurance Company to prove that motorcycle was involved in accident and insured vehicle was not involved in accident and at the time of alleged accident, claimants were under the influence of alcohol. Therefore, the impugned award cannot be sustained. The matters require reconsideration by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has to frame a specific issue and determine the issue in accordance with law. In the results, I pass the following:
ORDER
M.F.A. Nos. 1164/2011 and 1165/2011 are accepted. The impugned awards are set aside. The matters are remanded to Tribunal for reconsideration in the light of observations made herein and in accordance with law. In view of remand order, M.F.A. Nos. 2743/2011 and 2745/2011 filed by claimants for enhancement of compensation do not survive for consideration for the present. Parties are at liberty to adduce further evidence. The amount deposited by Insurance Company shall be refunded to Insurance Company.