(Prayer: This Appeal is filed U/s.173 (1) of the M.V. Act, against the judgment and award dated 16.11.2010 passed in MVC No.466/2007 on the file of the Member, MACT-III, Bellary, Awarding the Compensation of Rs.6,67,933/- with interest @ 6% P.A. from the date of petition till its Realisation.)
1. Appeal by the Insurance Company for getting out of their liability as fastened by the Tribunal which is to be made good by the joint tortfeasor and the insurer jointly and severally. The ground for such eventually i.e., for reversing the order and award of the Tribunal and to relieve the appellant Insurance Company from its joint liability is that there is possibility of the accident itself not having taken place as on 10.07.2005 as claimed by the claimant, that there is possibility of the vehicle which is said to be involved in the accident and the owner of which vehicle had been covered by the Insurance Company perhaps was not at all involved in the accident and the victim a motor cycle rider who suffered head and spinal injuries resulting in paraplegic conditions down the ways perhaps suffered the injury on his own due to a fall from the motor bike and not necessarily hit by the car a vehicle insured with the appellant-Insurance Company.
2. Such are the submissions made by Sri.Laxman B. Mannoddar, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company in this appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act (for short ‘the Act’), while the accident occurred on 10.07.2005, the complaint itself came to be lodged after about 65 days after the incident are all pointed out to be factors which does create such doubts or suspicion in either the incident and the injury being as a result of the vehicle i.e., Ambassador Car bearing registration No.MEA-4767 insured with the appellant- Insurance Company. Hence, the suspicion is sought to be highlighted for getting the order of the Tribunal reversed in so far as fastening of the joint liability on the appellant-Insurance Company is concerned.
3. In effect, submission of Sri.Laxman B. Mannoddar, learned counsel for appellant- Insurance Company is that the claimant has played fraud on the Insurance Company to get a relief which he is otherwise not entitled to claim either as against the owner of the car in respect of which the appellant-Insurance Company has provided cover or against the Insurance Company itself and that the complaint against the owner of the vehicle and the driver of the vehicle insured with the appellant- Insurance Company must have been an after thought and therefore no liability could have been fastened on the Insurance Company.
4. It is not in dispute that the accident took place on 10.07.2005 and in fact much reliance is placed by Sri. Mannoddar, learned counsel for the appellant on Ex.P.5, a Wound Certificate that had been issued by the doctor at VIMS Hospital, Bellary, which had indicated that the claimant had suffered injuries of the nature attributable to a fall from bike on which he was riding and that it does not suggest that the injury was due to an accident involving the vehicle etc., nor the certificate suggest that the injury is to the impact of a vehicle like Ambassadar car hitting a motorcycle rider.
5. It is also not in dispute that the appellant- Insurance Company has provided cover to the owner of the Ambassador car and if an accident of the nature as was claimed had occurred and if the driver of the car was responsible for causing the accident, the Insurance Company without any doubt is liable to make good the compensation awarded in favour of the claimant by reimbursing the owner in terms of not only the contract of policy but also in the light of the provisions of Section 147 of the Act. In a situation of this nature, when the contemporaneous records does throw light on the event namely the accident on 10.07.2005, involvement of the vehicle of the claimant and the insured and further the police records also speak about the same, if the Insurance Company which had admittedly issued a policy in favour of the owner of the vehicle to cover his risks wants to set up a special defence by pleading or claiming that the claimant by collusion and fraud has roped in the insured and the insurer, it cannot be by a mere aggressive submission made at the bar by the counsel of the appellant-Insurance Company but should have been by means of a proper plea of the claimant pleading before the Tribunal the factum of playing fraud against of the Insurance Company and by giving full particulars of fraud and proving the plea to the hilt. Nothing of this sort having been either admitted or done by the Insurance Company, a submission of this nature is more rhetoric than convincing nor based on the record. There is absolutely no material in this appeal and therefore the appeal is dismissed at the threshold without even admitting the appeal.
While the amount before this court is directed to be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith, the appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the balance amount before the Tribunal within four weeks from today along with the interest as stipulated by the Tribunal. The Tribunal is directed to disburse the amount in favour of the claimant in terms of its award.
As the main appeal itself is dismissed, Misc.Cvl.No.101917/2011 does not survive for consideration. Hence, it is dismissed.