Case Title: Ganesh Achar AND United India Insurance Co LTD.
Summary
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed an appeal by the claimant seeking an increase in compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The court ruled that the claimant’s admission of culpability is insufficient to warrant the tribunal’s deliberation. However, United India Insurance appealed to vacate the tribunal’s order granting compensation. The claimant claimed the offending vehicle’s occupant recklessly collided with him, leading to a private complaint being denied by the insurance company. The court dismissed the claimant’s appeal, stating that the claimant failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish the vehicle’s involvement.
About the case
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that the burden of proof lies with the claimant to present independent evidence when they submit an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The court ruled that the owner/driver of the offending vehicle’s mere admission of culpability is insufficient to warrant the tribunal’s deliberation.
Thus, the appeal submitted by the claimant seeking an increase in compensation was dismissed by a single judge bench led by Justice Lalitha Kanneganti. However, the appeal filed by United India Insurance to vacate the tribunal’s order granting compensation to the claimant was granted. As per the claimant, the offending vehicle’s occupant recklessly and carelessly collided with him as he was proceeding on a motorcycle. A month after this claimant was hospitalized for ten days, a private complaint was subsequently submitted. The insurance company denied the claim, stating that the claimant crashed his motorcycle onto the road while operating it at a high rate of speed. Further, it was contended that uncertainties were created by the complaint’s late submission.
It was further contended that the claimant bears the burden of establishing both vehicle involvement and negligence when filing an application under Section 166 of the MV Act. Upon reviewing the records, the bench determined that the complaint had been filed with an evident delay of nearly thirty days. Additionally, it was believed that the tribunal erred in its conclusion that the act of submitting the charge sheet and the vehicle owner’s admission of guilt are sufficient grounds for convicting the accused. “There is no doubt that the charge sheet supports the claimant’s case,” the court stated in dismissing the appeal of the claimant. This Court is unable to accept any of the claimant’s arguments or the Tribunal’s conclusion that the vehicle was involved in the accident, in light of the circumstances surrounding the incident (date of complaint and date of accident). As determined by this court’s deliberation, the claimant failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish the vehicle’s involvement. This court agrees with the tribunal that its determination that the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation was erroneous. The appellant was represented by Advocate Shivaraj B. K.
