K C AJJANNA Vs. S M NAGARAJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M. F. A. No. 2048 of 2001 is filed by the owners of the vehicle who were the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 before the Tribunal. Appellant in M. F. A. No. 4304 of 2000 was the claimant before the Tribunal. Claimant S. M. Nagaraja presented claim petition claiming compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident occurred on 26. 6. 1988. According to him, on 26. 6. 1988 at about 5 p. m. he was a pillion rider of scooter bearing No. MER 2964 and one rajanna was driving the scooter. When they were proceeding near Tubagere a car bearing No. CKL 9086 which was coming from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner hit the scooter due to which petitioner sustained grievous injuries on his head and also sustained fracture of left thigh. He was immediately shifted to Victoria Hospital, Bangalore and was inpatient from 26. 6. 1988 to 6. 8. 1988. His leg was operated and a nail was inserted and due to which he sustained permanent disability and shortening of left leg by half an inch. Therefore, he claimed compensation of Rs. 2,50,000 against the owner of the car and the insurance company. Respondent No. 3, insurance company contested the case contending that policy was issued in favour of respondent No. 2 on 30. 5. 1988 by collecting a cheque for Rs. 1,176 and on presentation the said cheque was dishonoured. Therefore, on 23. 6. 1988 insurance company cancelled the policy issued in favour of the respondent No. 2. Therefore, respondent No. 3 is not answerable to satisfy the claim of the claimant. Respondent No. 2 filed a separate written statement. According to respondent No. 2 accident was not due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car, even if it is held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car, insurance company has to satisfy the award. According to him, policy was issued by respondent No. 3 by collecting a cheque for Rs. 1,176 and a receipt was also issued on 30. 5. 1988, he had issued a cheque drawn on respondent No. 4, Rai-thara Seva Sahakara Sangha (N), Singa-nayakanahalli, Bangalore, wherein he had an account and that cheque sent by the respondent No. 3 was realized on 6. 6. 1988 and, therefore, respondent No. 3 cannot cancel the policy issued in favour of respondent No. 2. According to him, Syndicate Bank of Singanayakanahalli Branch inadvertently returned the cheque. Therefore, respondent No. 3 cannot cancel the policy issued in favour of respondent No. According to him, the cheque sent by respondent No. 3, insurance company for collection was honoured by the banker of respondent No. 2. Therefore, the respondent No. 3 insurance company is liable to satisfy the award.

(2.) BASED on the above pleadings, following issues were framed for consideration by the trial court:

(3.) CLAIMANT was examined as PW 1. He also examined Dr. T. R. Nagaraj who treated him at Victoria Hospital as PW 2. Petitioner relied upon documents Exhs. P-l to p-22. On behalf of the respondents, official of respondent No. 3 one M. Narayanan was examined as RW 1 and the respondent no. 2 Narayanappa was examined as RW 2. Respondents have produced documents exhs. R-l to R-12. Tribunal after appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties held issue No. 1 in the affirmative, issue no. 2 in the affirmative and awarded a sum of Rs. 58,000 by holding that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal has to be satisfied by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the claim against respondent Nos. 3 to 6 was dismissed.