Ramesh N. vs Divisional Manager The National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Mr. Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.

The present appeal is preferred against a judgment and award dismissing a claim petition on the maintainability of the claim by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

The facts are as follows:

It transpires that on 30.01.2008 at about 6.30 p.m., the appellant herein who was a Physical Education Teacher employed in Mandya Government College for Boys and Girls, was said to be supervising the repairs being carried out to the play ground of the college and it transpires that in the process, there was a Tipper Lorry which was deployed for carrying out the works. It transpires that the Tipper lorry bearing registration No. KA-10-0919 in the course of its operation was driven in a rash and negligent manner and it transpires that accidentally, it had run over the appellant''s legs. In the result, he had suffered crush injuries and multiple fractures and it was however possible, after treatment, to save one leg but the other leg was amputated below the knee. He was treated as an inpatient and more than Rs. 2,50,000/- was spent towards medical expenses. It is in this background that the claim had been preferred, seeking compensation against the insurer of the Tipper lorry. It transpires that the matter was contested and it was urged by the insurer of the Tipper lorry that there is inconsistency in the claim. In that, when the appellant was admitted to hospital in the first instance, it was entered in the Medico Legal Case (MLC) register that the appellant had been run over by a bulldozer and therefore, the claim being filed on the footing that he had suffered injuries as a result of Tipper lorry haring run over him, was apparently to lay claim for compensation against the insurer of the Tipper lorry, knowing fully well that the earthmover was not insured by the present insurer and respondent.

The counsel for the first respondent had raised a primary defence as to maintainability of the claim before the Tribunal, since the appellant and the second respondent were residents of Mandya and the accident has also occurred at Mandya and the Insurance policy has also been issued at the Mandya Branch The Tribunal has only dealt with the said issue, while ignoring the claim preferred and has ultimately come to a conclusion that the claim does not evoke the confidence of the Tribunal and has proceeded to reject the same. It is that which is under challenge in the present appeal.

The learned counsel for the appellant seeks to place reliance on certain documents which would disclose that the Tribunal has been swayed by the entry in the Medico Legal Case register while it has not taken into consideration certain other circumstances and which were brought to its attention. The complaint was admittedly registered 07 days after the accident. It transpires that the accident occurred at Mandya and the appellant was immediately shifted to the Government Hospital, Mandya in the first instance and was later brought to Hosmat Hospital at Bengaluru. Given the circumstances that the entire family of the appellant had come along with him and stayed at Bengaluru for the entire week and it is thereafter that the brother-in-law of the claimant has lodged the complaint as to the accident and therefore, the Tribunal finding the claim to be inconsistent with reference to the vehicle in the Medico Legal Case register, the Tribunal has proceeded to hold that the claim was a false claim. However, it is further pointed out that the insurance company itself had taken exception to this inconsistency and had filed a criminal case against the appellant and others and in this regard, the police are said to have carried out an investigation and had filed a report. Ultimately, confirming that there was an accident involving a Tipper lorry and not the earthmover. This report though was in the hands of the insurance company, the same was not brought to the attention of the Tribunal. It is in retrospect that the appellant has been able to secure a copy of the report and it would conclusively prove that it was the Tipper lorry which was involved in the accident. The mistake committed while reporting the accident in the first instance which has been recorded in the MLC register, would not be conclusive and hence, seeks that the Tribunal be directed to reconsider its earlier decision with reference to other unimpeachable evidence on record, which may be considered by the Tribunal to award compensation.

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that if there are additional materials that the appellant has to produce before the Tribunal, the same may be so permitted since there are no observations made on the merits of the case, the matter should be reexamined by the Tribunal, such an exercise may be directed to be carried out by the Tribunal.

Accordingly, the appeal is summarily allowed and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal with liberty to present the additional materials that have been gathered, to demonstrate that the accident in question had occasioned in view of the Tipper lorry having run over the appellant and not the earthmover. Any observations made herein above would not in any way influence the decision of the Tribunal.

However, it is further made clear that the Tribunal need not restrict itself to the issue as to the maintainability and it shall avoid any further delay in considering the claim of the appellant. If there is any objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance company as to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in entertaining the claim even if the Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction, it is always open for the appellant to seek a transfer of the matter, if it deters the Tribunal from proceeding with the matter.