RAJASHEKARAYYA Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellant. It is to be noticed that the appellant's claim for compensation was summarily rejected by the Tribunal holding that there was a doubt as to whether the appellant was injured in an accident as a result of a fall from a bullock cart or, as claimed by him as a result of a fall from a motor cycle, on which he was said to be riding pillion. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the injured was admitted to a hospital by one A.V. Swamy with a history of a fall from a bullock cart, at 10 a.m. on 15.4.2007. While it was sought to be urged by the appellant that he had been admitted to the hospital after a fall from a motor cycle. The Tribunal has held that it was a clear case aimed at seeking compensation on a false claim and has summarily rejected the claim petition. On an appeal before this court, this court had also affirmed the judgment of the Tribunal. However, a review petition was filed in RP 2051/2009 wherein the following order was passed: -

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the review petitioner, Sri Basavaraj R Math submits the appeal was filed questioning the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 19.6.2008 in MVC No. 450/07 by which the claim petition of the appellant was rejected on the ground that nexus was not established between the injuries suffered by the claimant and the accident in question. He submits that on 11.11.2008, when he argued the matter before this court, he was not aware that in the collateral proceedings pending before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raichur, in Complaint No. DCFR. 90/2007, the same issue was being considered on serious contest between the parties, namely, L.Rs. of the rider of the motor cycle by name Rudraswamy and the insurer of the vehicle, which complaint came to be allowed, directing the insurance company to pay the amount of compensation in terms of the policy. He submits that the finding establishes that the petitioner who was one of the victims in the same road accident, was also entitled for the relief of compensation on the basis that he had suffered injuries in the motor accident. He submits, as he was not aware of the said proceedings, he could not bring to the notice of this court that the dispute raised by the insurance company before the Tribunal was already decided by the competent forum on 11.9.2008. Due to non -availability of the certified copy of the order, he did not produce it, nor brought those facts to the notice of the court, and he argued the matter on the basis of the records available and hence, could not satisfy the court.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel, I have examined the order passed in DCFR 90/07 dated 11.9.2008, copy of which is made available. It shows that one Smt. Gangamma and Vishwanath filed the complaint before the Forum seeking a direction to National Insurance Company Limited insurer to pay the assured sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ - as also an equal sum for deficiency of service. They based their claim on the following set of facts: