Remanded

K H Hanumanthappa v. Nagarajappa

Karnataka HC4 Mar 2014MFA/1326/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Motor Accident Claims Appeals regarding compensation awards, the High Court remitted the matter to the Tribunal for re-examination regarding the driver's identity and vitality to determine liability and cross-examination of the driver.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment and award set aside; matter remitted to Tribunal for examination of driver's identity and licence validity; amount deposited refunded to appellant.

K H Hanumanthappa Vs Nagarajappa — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2014

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH

¶5

M.F.A.No.1325 /2011 (MV)

¶6

C/w. M.F.A.No.1326/2011 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

K.H.Hanumanthappa S/o Halappa, aged 66 years, Agriculturist, R/o Mallenahalli village, R.G.Halli Post, Davanagere Taluk & Dist.

¶9

.. Appellant

¶10

( By Sri Jagadeeshgoud Patil, Advocate )

¶11

AND :

¶12

Parameshwarappa S/o Ramappa, aged 30 years, Agriculturist, R/o Mallenahalli village, R.G.Halli Post, Davanagere Taluk & Dist.

¶13

(Respondent in

¶14

MFA.No.1325/2011)

¶15

Nagarajappa S/o Hanumanthappa, aged 36 years, Agriculturist, R/o Mallenahalli village, R.G.Halli Post, Davanagere Taluk & Dist.

(Respondent in

MFA.No.1326/2011)

Basavarajappa S/o Shadaksharappa, aged 36 years, R/o Mallenahalli village, R.G.Halli Post, Davanagere Taluk & Dist.

¶20

The Manager,

¶21

The National Insurance Co.Ltd., Divisional Office, Melagiri Plaza, Opp: Dental College, Vidyanagara Road, Davanagere.

¶22

.. Respondents

¶23

(Respondents 2 & 3 are common in both Appeals)

¶24

( By Sri Manjunath Pattana Shetty, Advocate for R-1 and Smt.S.Nirmala, advocate for R-3 )

¶25

These Appeals are filed under Section 173(1) of M.V.Act against the common judgment and award dated 28.10.2010 passed in MVC.No.111/2010 (in MFA.No.1325/2011) and in MVC.No.112/2010 (in MFA.No.1326/2011) on the file of II Addl.District Judge, MACT-II, Davanagere, awarding compensation of Rs.1,18,400/- (in MFA.No.1325/2011) and Rs.1,45,000/- (in MFA.No.1326/2011) with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till deposit.

¶26

These Appeals coming on for Admission this day, the Court delivered the following :

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

By the impugned common judgment and award dated 28^th

¶29

October 2010 passed in MVC.Nos.111 & 112/2010, the Tribunal has fixed the liability to pay compensation jointly and severally

¶30

¶31

on the driver and owner of the tractor-trailer bearing registration No.KA-17-TR-2870-2871 which was involved in the accident. The same is being questioned in these appeals by the owner of the offending vehicle.

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for respective parties.

¶33

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that 1^st respondent before the Tribunal i.e., Basavaraj was not the driver of the vehicle in question at the time of accident and that it is one Anaberu Prakash who was the driver of the tractor-trailer. However, the learned counsel for the insurer submitted that nothing has been demonstrated to show that this Anaberu Prakash was the driver of the vehicle in question at the time of accident nor any material is placed. She also submitted that the owner/appellant has taken the stand for the first time before this Court that there is contributory negligence on the part of claimants also.

¶34

According to the case of the prosecution, Basavaraj was

¶35

¶36

driving the tractor at the relevant point of time. According to the owner-appellant, the tractor was driven by Anaberu Prakash and he was having valid driving licence. Neither Anaberu Prakash nor Basavaraj were examined by the owner nor they were subjected to cross-examination by the insurance company and there is also no positive evidence of holding valid driving licence. However, to examine the matter once again, the matter has to be remitted to the Tribunal.

¶37

Accordingly, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to decide as to whether Basavaraj was driving or Anaberu Prakash was driving the vehicle in question at the time of accident and whether the driver had valid driving licence. The Tribunal is also directed to give opportunity to the owner to prove and establish that at the relevant point of time it is not Basavaraj rather Anaberu Prakash who was the driver of the vehicle in question and he had valid driving licence and subject him to cross-examination by the insurer and thereafter, to pass

¶38

¶39

appropriate orders with regard to payment of compensation either by the insurance company or by the owner of the offending vehicle. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 7^th April 2014. All contentions are kept open to be urged.

¶40

Office is directed to send back the records and also to refund the amount deposited in these appeals to the appellant. Appeals are disposed of accordingly.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

bk/

K H Hanumanthappa v. Nagarajappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K H Hanumanthappa v. Nagarajappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahamathualla Vs Afsar Pasha

Sri Tripura Bhairavi Mutt Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri H M Srinath Vs Sri Muninagappa

Smt P Sunitha W/O Late K. Venugopal Vs Basavaraju

K H Hanumanthappa Vs Parameshwarappa

Sri Norbert Ronald D Souza Vs Sri Santhosh Suvarna