Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 761 (KAR)

Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nitin

2017-04-18

S.N.SATYAN ARAYANA

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. The 2nd respondent insurer in MVC No. 231/2008 on the file of Addl. MACT, Ranebennur has come up in this appeal impugning the Judgment dated 05.07.2012. 2. The grievances of the insurer is that, though the accident has taken place on 07.11.2001 at 3.00 P.M. The complaint is not filed before the Police until 03.12.2001. The entire procedure right from receiving the complaint and registering the same as First Information Report to drawing up of spot mahazar, seizure mahazar, referring the vehicles to motor vehicles inspection and receiving the report everything has been done within a span of 12 hours on 03.12.2001. 3. Further it is contended that, in the claim petition, though aforesaid discrepancies are shown to the Court below the same is said to be ignored. It is stated in the petition though claimant has stated that he has suffered fracture injuries, he has not visited any doctor till 7.00 PM. of next day of accident. Thereafter he is said to have got treated for that, which is accepted by the Court below and compensation has been awarded to the claimant for the alleged injuries suffered in the road traffic accident. 4. In this proceeding, though this appeal is at the stage of admission after hearing the parties for some times lower Court records were secured. According to claimant he was rider of motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-27/E-3383. On 07.11.2001 while he was proceeding on 3rd cross Rajeshwari Nagar, Ranebennur he is said to be hit by motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-27/H-9792 at 3.00 P.M. resulting in grievous injuries to him. The injuries are said to be in the nature of fracture of humorous, shaft of left humorous and other related injuries. Though the claimant is said to have suffered fracture injuries in an accident on 07.11.2011 at about 3.00 P.M. he does not go to the hospital or visit any doctor till 08.11.2011 at 7.00 P.M. It is only at that time he would go to a Private Hospital where he was not admitted but treated as outpatient. Though he get treated in private hospital, the doctor of private hospital will issue a wound certificate on the printed wound certificate format of a Government Health Department and surprisingly he has put the seal of his clinic on the certificate of Government Hospital. Based on this the proceedings in MVC No. 231/2008 is initiated. Though he get treated in private hospital, the doctor of private hospital will issue a wound certificate on the printed wound certificate format of a Government Health Department and surprisingly he has put the seal of his clinic on the certificate of Government Hospital. Based on this the proceedings in MVC No. 231/2008 is initiated. 5. It is also seen after accident he went to doctor on 08.11.2001, however for filing complaint with the Police he would leisurely go to Police Station on 03.12.2001 for filing a complaint with the Police with reference to an accident which has taken place about 28 days prior to the date of filing of complaint. The manner in which the complaint is registered and FIR is drawn would indicate that, as if the entire Police Station was waiting for this gentlemen to walk into the Police Station with a complaint. As could be observed it is unusual to the Police to attend to such complaint immediately after receiving the same. 6. The Police who receive complaint at 9.30 P.M. on 03.12.2001 would send a team to the place of accident and spot mahazar was drawn between 10.00 to 10.45 A.M. on the same day. They would also seize the vehicle between 11.00 and 11.30 A.M. and the seizure of the vehicle is done before the Police Station as if the vehicle had come to the Police Station along with the complainant to surrender the vehicle without wasting further time. By 3.00 P.M. on the same day the said vehicle of the alleged accused is sent to the Motor Vehicles Department. The Motor Vehicles Department also send the report on the same day. That means, between 9.30 A.M. in the morning to 5.00 P.M., entire procedure is completed which is unheard of happening in any Government Department much less in the Police Stations. The complainant in Crime No. 122/2001 being equipped with the copies of all these documents approach the Tribunal immediately by filing a petition seeking compensation. 7. The records would also disclose that the claim petition filed by him in MVC No. 163/2002 was dismissed for non prosecution on 02.06.2006. As against which, he files an application in Misc. No. 37/2006 and that also came to be dismissed on 03.12.2007. Subsequently in the year 2008 the present petition in MVC No. 231/2008 is filed. 8. 7. The records would also disclose that the claim petition filed by him in MVC No. 163/2002 was dismissed for non prosecution on 02.06.2006. As against which, he files an application in Misc. No. 37/2006 and that also came to be dismissed on 03.12.2007. Subsequently in the year 2008 the present petition in MVC No. 231/2008 is filed. 8. The appellant insurer would place all these records before the Court below in the form of Ex. R.4. The callous attitude with which the Presiding Officer of Tribunal proceeded with this matter would shock the conscience of this Court. He would shamelessly ignore all these and accept as if this is routine and proceeded to allow the claim petition and award compensation in a sum of Rs. 2,92,550/- payable with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. 9. The respondent insurer in the said proceedings has come up in this appeal impugning the said judgment. When this appeal is at the stage of admission, this Court after hearing the parties for some time summoned lower Court records. On going through the same, this Court is dumb found as to manner in which the fraud is developed in the field of claim proceedings. What is intriguing is the apathy on the part of Tribunals in not appreciating the material available on record. It is seen that the Tribunal has dealt with this matter as if it is a routine thing and that anything and everything is said by the claimant is to be accepted as gospel truth. This should not be allowed to continue without any check otherwise, the very sanctity of existence of Court will be diluted. The people would loose faith, the Court proceeding should not be considered as last resort of vagabonds to think that the Courts could be used for making quick buck as is being done particularly in MVC cases and land acquisition matters. 10. To put an end to this, the Courts should deal with these matters firmly but, whenever punitive action is taken there is always an attempt to oppose the same with a prayer that the Court should be sympathetic towards the injured and family of the deceased who are victims in road traffic accident. In fact, it is only ruse to get over punitive action. In fact, it is only ruse to get over punitive action. What is seen behind this compensation field is the organized mafia for which every accident is an opportunity to make money, even the minute accident which has not resulted in any injuries to anybody is converted into a profitable venture, they try to collect as much as they can from the gullible owners of the vehicles which is not involved in the accident and also Insurance Companies who are sitting as soft duck for this kind of extraction litigation. With such observations the judgment in MVC No. 231/2008 is set-aside. Accordingly by allowing this appeal filed by the 2nd respondent insurer the judgment and award in MVC No. 231/2008 on the file of M ACT, Ranebennur is set-aside. 11. While doing this, this Court feel cost is required to be saddled on the claimant 1st respondent herein for abusing the process of law. Hence cost of Rs. 10,000/- is imposed as cost recoverable from the 1st respondent claimant for having abused the process of law and also for wasting valuable time of the Tribunal and as well as of this Court. The same shall be deposited by first respondent in the registry of this Court within four weeks. If it is not deposited within four weeks, it is recoverable by the registry, by initiating proceedings for recovery, the registry may also recover this as arrears of land revenue from the 1st respondent claimant. 12. In view of appeal being allowed, amount in deposit is ordered to be refunded to the appellant insurer. 13. Miscellaneous First Appeal is Allowed with costs imposed on the Claimant.