IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 23 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE V. SURI APPA RAO MFA No.11369/2007 (MV) BETWEEN: BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, APMC YARD, MRITHYUNJAY NAGAR DHARWAD, NOW REP. BY ITS REGIONAL j MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, SUBHARAM COMPELX 144, MG. ROAD, BLORE-560 001. ... k[IO3? (By Sri. RAJASHEKAR S ARANI, ADV) AND 1. TAMMAYYA S,’O RAMAKRISHNA HEBBAR NOW AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 0CC: RYOT, R/O HALAVALLI TQ. ANKOLA. UTTARA KANNADA. 2. RAJARAM SINGH SHIVASINGH HAJARI NOW AGED ABOUT 37YEARS 0CC: DRIVER, R/O HOSAYELLAPUR, NUCCHE AMLIBAVI ONI, DHARWAD CITY, DHARWAD. 3. MADIVALAPPA CHANNAPPA ALNAVAR AGE: MAJOR, OWNER OF CAR BEARING NO. MEK-8496 R/O 1ST CROSS, SAIDAPUR ROAD NEAR OLD DSP OFFICE DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENTS (By M/s SHASTRI & HEGDE ASSTS FOR Ri) ! L,VTUk ii3 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & AWARD DATED 21/6/2007 PASSED IN MVC NO.78/06 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE(SR.DN) & ADDL MACT, YELLAPUR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.2,66,200/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. AND ETC. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Co. Ltd. has filed this appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and award dated 21.06.2007 passed in MVC 78/2006 on the file of the Addl. MACT, Yellapur, whereby the claim petition filed by the 1 respondent herein, was allowed awarding compensation of Rs.2,66,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident. 3 2. The appellant Is the Insurer of the vehicle bearing No.MEK-8496. He has contended that the accident took place only due to the negligence of the petitioner who was riding the motorcycle bearing No.KA.30 J-1680 and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the car bearing No.MEK-8496 belonging to the 3X1 respondent. It is further submitted that on the complaint of one Govind Bhat, the Yellapur police registered a case against the injured petitioner on 3.12.2002. Subsequently, the Yeliapur police flied charge sheet against him for the offence punishable under SectIon 279, 337 of IPC. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal has erroneously awarded compensation against the appellant holding that there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner claimant and that the accident took place only due to the negligence of the driver of the car. He submitted that the police after due investigation have flied the charge sheet against the injured petitioner alleging that he was 4 responsible for the accident. Therefore, the appellant Insurance Company is not at all liable to pay the compensation. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the 1 respondent-injured claimant, submitted that when the petitioner was admitted in the hospital for treatment, false complaint was lodged against him at the instance of the 3 respondent - owner of the offending vehicle. After discharge from the hospital the claimant lodged a private complaint in C.C.26/2003 before the learned JMFC, Yellapur against the 2 respondent-driver of the car and that there is no negligence on the part of the injured- claimant. The 2 respondent was summoned by the learned JMFC, Yellapur and when he was questioned u/s 252 CrP.C. he pleaded guilty of offences punishable under sections 279, 337, 338 IPC. Therefore, the learned judge imposed fine of Rs.800/-, Rs3OO/- and Rs.800/- respectively for the aforesaid offences against the respondent. It is therefore, clear from the admission of the 2 respondent who is owner of the car, that the accident was due to negligence of the driver of the car 2 respondent. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly found the 220 respondent guilty of causing the accident and awarded compensation. 5. As seen from the records, during the pendancy of the claim petition before the Tribunal, C.C.26/2003 (later C.C.No.353/06) was disposed of on 28.6.2007. The Tribunal disposed of the claim petition filed by the petitioner on 21.6.2007. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is not aware about the disposal of the CC.353/06 filed by the petitioner against the driver of the car. Therefore, the appellant insurance company had no opportunity to rebut the evidence of the petitioner in view of the disposal of the private complaint filed by the petitioner on the basis of which the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the car belonging to the 3 respondent. 6. In that view of the matter, this Court feels that it is just and necessary in the interest of justice to set 6 aside the impugned judgment and to remand the case to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law, after giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant to adduce rebuttal evidence in view of the disposal of CC.353/2006 subsequent to the disposal of MVCJ8/2006, only with regard to the manner of accident. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The award passed by the MACT,Yellapur, in MVC.78/2006 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Addl. MACT, Yellapur for fresh disposal in accordance with law within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 4.11.2011. rf Nd rr j S u b/