The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Krishna and Others

P.S. Dinesh Kumar, J.—In these five appeals, the insurance company has challenged the legality and correctness of the common judgment and award dated 12.06.2008 passed in M.V.C. Nos. 501/2006, 507/2006, 499/2006, 504/2006 and 512/2006 by Addl. M.A.C.T., Koppal. (Tribunal, for short).

Heard Sri A.G. Jadhav, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in M.F.A. No. 20504/2008 and Sri Rajashekhar S. Arani, learned counsel appearing for appellant in other appeals and perused the records. There is no representation on behalf of the respondents.

Learned counsel for the insurance company submit that all the claim petitions filed before the Tribunal are fabricated. They submit that in all 19 claim petitions, containing common pleadings were filed before the Tribunal contending inter alia, that on 28.04.1999, at about 2.30 p.m., a lorry bearing registration No. KA-05/8341 which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, toppled and dashed against the claim petitioners who were standing near Aralihalli cross at Kanakagiri-Gangavathi road, in Gangavathi Taluk resulting in claimants sustaining injuries. Learned counsels further contend that the pleadings contained in each of the claim petitions are factually incorrect and designed to suit the requirement of individual claimants. According to them, the claimants were travelling in the lorry in question which toppled due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry. In order to bring it within the parameters of motor vehicle accident claims, claim petitioners have come out with a story that they were waiting on the road side and were hit by the offending lorry.

Amplifying their argument, they referred to Rule 232 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ''Rules'', for short) and contend that every application filed before a Claims Tribunal is required to be filed in compliance with the said provisions of law. According to them, the claim petitions are filed only enclosing a spot panchanama and without the First Information Report. Nextly, they contend that there is a clear embargo of goods transport vehicle to carry any passenger and on these two grounds, the claim petitions could not have been entertained by the Tribunal.

So far as the first ground with regard to filing of the application for compensation is concerned, the same is governed by Chapter 7 of the Rules. Rule 232(3) reads as follows:

"232 (3) There shall be appended to every such application the following documents:--

(a) Medical Certificate in Form KMV 64 or Post-mortem Report or Death Certificate; and

(b) First Information Report in respect of the accident."

A perusal of the above provision of law makes it clear that an application filed for compensation shall be appended with a medical certificate/postmortem report/death certificate and a First Information Report. Insofar as the ground with regard to carrying passengers is concerned, learned counsels for the appellant are right in their submission that Rule 100 prohibits from carrying any person in a goods vehicle other than the exceptions provided therein. Relevant portion of the said Rule reads as follows:

"100. Carriage of persons in goods vehicle.--(1) Subject to the provisions of this rule, no person shall be carried in a goods vehicle."

The Tribunal, while dealing with the defence of the insurance company has adverted to the deposition of PW-1 who has stated in his cross-examination that the accident had happened when they had gone to attend the marriage of one Basavaraj in the offending lorry. The Tribunal has also adverted to the cross-examination of PW-1 in which he has stated that he was travelling in the lorry belonging to the respondent No. 1 therein (the owner of the vehicle). However, the Tribunal has not relied upon this version of PW-1 in view of evidence of PWs-2 to 16. It has further held that the oral testimony of the claim petitioners show that they were standing by the side of the road prior to the accident. Tribunal has recorded a finding in paragraph 128 that neither the claim petitioners nor the insurance company have produced the First Information Report. It has come to the conclusion that the possibilities of the claim petitioners sustaining injuries while standing by the side of the road due to turtling of the offending vehicle cannot be ruled out.

Rule 232(3) mandates that an application for claim in a motor vehicle accident''s case shall be appended with medical certificate and FIR. In these cases there has been an infraction to the said Rule inasmuch as the First Information Report has not been produced in any of the claim petitions. Tribunal has held that it is not possible to design the manner in which a motor vehicle accident has taken place. Although it is mentioned in the judgment of the Tribunal that First Information Report is not produced by either the claimants or the respondents, the records reveal that a photocopy of a FIR in Crime No. 80/1999 registered in Gangavathi Rural Circle Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A read with Section 134 of the IPC and a copy of spot panchanama are filed before the Tribunal on 18.08.2005. It is not forthcoming as to why the said document namely the First Information Report was not taken on record and only the spot panchanama has been referred to the judgement of the Tribunal. The spot panchanama is in respect of the Crime No. 80/1999, which relates to the said First Information Report. A perusal of the said First Information Report reveals that when the lorry in question was returning with the passengers who had gone to attend a marriage, toppled, resulting in about 30 to 40 passengers in the lorry sustaining injuries. In the spot panchanama, it is mentioned that about 40 to 50 persons who were travelling in the lorry had sustained injuries. Contents of FIR and panchanama are sufficient to hold that claimants were injured while travelling in the said lorry and the same is in contravention of Rule 100. Consequently, the claim petitions filed before the Tribunal were not maintainable for violation of the aforementioned rules. Therefore, appeals merit consideration. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

"ORDER

(i) Appeals are allowed.

(ii) Claim petitions in M.V.C. Nos. 501/2006, 507/2006, 499/2006, 504/2006 and 512/2006 stand dismissed.

(iii) No costs."

Registry is directed to refund the amount in deposit to the insurance company.

Ordered accordingly.