Allowed

Mr T Hemanath v. Sri Koosappa Gowda

Karnataka HC8 Jun 2015MFA/1182/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed a miscellaneous first appeal filed by a vehicle owner against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The Tribunal had held the driver lacked a license and imposed compensation liability. The Court noted the appellant produced a valid license during the appeal, finding the Tribunal remitted similar other clubbed cases for the same reason. Consequently, the appeal w

What did the court decide?

Impugned Judgment and Award set aside; matter remitted to the Tribunal; I.A.s rejected; deposit refunded.

Mr T Hemanath Vs Sri Koosappa Gowda — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2015)

¶1

MFA ��

¶2

��

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2015

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S.PACHHAPURE

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.1182 OF 2014 [MV]

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MR.T.HEMANATH S/O BANTAPPA MOOLYA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/A. NELLI HOUSE, BALTHILA VILLAGE, BARIMAR POST, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI: PRASANNA.V.R., ADV) AND:

¶10

SRI.KOOSAPPA GOWDA S/O LATE MANJAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT: KEDILA HOUSE, AMTOOR VILLAGE, KARINGARA POST, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT.

¶11

SMT.JALAJA @ JALAJAKSHI W/O KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT:SORAKKE HOUSE, SARVEY VILLAGE AND POST, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT.

¶12

MFA ��

¶13

��

¶14

SRI.DERANNA @ DINESH S/O LATE MANJAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT:KEDILA HOUSE, AMTOOR VILLAGE, KARINGARA POST, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT.

¶15

SMT.SHAKUNTHALA W/O VENKAPPA, AGED ABOUT:44 YEARS, R/AT:KELINJA HOUSE, VEERAKAMBHA VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT.

¶16

SMT.KAMALAKSHI W/O JANARDHANA, AGED ABOUT:39 YEARS, R/AT:MALABAVU HOUSE, VIA-MANIHALLA, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT.

¶17

SMT.MALLIKA.K W/O GIRISH, AGED ABOUT: 37 YEARS, R/AT: KARIPIDIKAANA HOUSE, ISHWARA MANGILA, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT.

¶18

7. KESHAVI,

¶19

D/O. LATE MANJAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT:KEDILA HOUSE, AMTOOR VILLAGE, KARINGARA POST, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT.

¶20

MFA ��

¶21

��

¶22

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, III FLOOR, GANESH BUILDING, B.C.ROAD, BANTWLA TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT – 574 219. ... RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. G.RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY, ADV FOR R1 TO 4, SRI. GANGADHAR SANGOLLI, ADV FOR R8, Respondents 5, 6 & 7 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶24

¶25

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:21.06.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.1044/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, MANGALORE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.1,43,500/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION.

¶26

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

The owner in this appeal has challenged the

¶29

Judgment and Award of compensation, imposing the liability upon him on the ground that the driver has no license, the Tribunal held the 1^st respondent i.e., the appellant herein to pay compensation of Rs.1,43,500-00 with interest at 6% p.a.

¶30

MFA ��

¶31

��

¶32

The Tribunal held that the driver has no

¶33

license and directed the appellant to pay the said sum. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and Award, the present appeal is filed.

¶34

During the pendency of the appeal, an

¶35

application in I.A. No.2/2014, seeking to produce additional documents is produced. The appellant has produced the copy of the license. It was renewed and was valid as on the date of the accident. The Tribunal has clubbed the claim petition of the appellant with other two cases in MVC Nos.1043/2009 and 1045/2009. Against the Award in MVC Nos.1043/2009 and 1045/2009 also an application was filed, seeking permission to produce the valid license. In view of production of the document, the matter was remitted back by this Court to the Tribunal and in the circumstances, in this appeal as well, the appellant has filed an application seeking to produce the document and prima facie all the documents reveal that the driver had held the

¶36

MFA ��

¶37

��

¶38

license to drive the vehicle as on the date of the accident. To consider further scrutiny of the evidence, it is necessary to remit back the matter.

¶39

Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The Judgment and Award impugned is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal. To avoid delay, both the parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 06.07.2015. The Tribunal may consider the question of delay while assessing the rate of interest. I.A. Nos.2 and 3/2014 do not survive for consideration and the same are rejected. The amount in deposit shall be refunded to the appellant.

¶40

JUDGE

¶41

Ksm*

Mr T Hemanath v. Sri Koosappa Gowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr T Hemanath v. Sri Koosappa Gowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivamma Vs the Incharge Manager

M S Jayaram Vs the United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Sathish Vs Basavaraju

Susheelamma Vs Venkatesha Reddy

Dugganna Gowda Vs Smt Annamma

Ramesha Vs the State by Tumkur Rural Police