Appeal against quantum of motor accident compensation. Bench found Tribunal's negligence finding improper due to lack of oral evidence. Appeal allowed to remand for fresh evidence.
Judgment and award impugned set aside; matter remitted to Tribunal for parties to adduce evidence on negligence.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 MFA No.2585/2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF JUNE, 2015 BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.S.PACHHAPURE
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.2585/2013 (MV)
BETWEEN:
M.LATHAMMA, W/O M.KARIYAPPAM, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OWNER OF THE TATA SUMO NO. KA-16/A-1613, R/O NEW DAVALAGIRI, NAGARA EXTENSION, CHITRADURGA-577501. ...APPELLANT (BY SMT SPOORTHY HEGDE.N., ADV.)
AND:
(BY SRI B.V.THILAK, ADV. FOR R1 SRI O.MAHESH, ADV. FOR R2)
2
MFA No.2585/2013
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:18.12.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.921/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT-5, CHITRADURGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appellant has challenged the findings on
negligence and quantum of compensation granted for the damages occurred to her vehicle in a motor vehicle accident.
occurred on 07.10.2008, the appellant made a claim
for compensation for the damages to her vehicle bearing registration No.KA-16/A-1613 (TATA Sumo).
When the said vehicle was proceeding on the road in Bangalore, a car bearing registration No.KA-03/B-5657 came from the opposite direction and hit the TATA Sumo. The vehicle of the appellant was damaged. After its repair, a claim was made for compensation.
3
MFA No.2585/2013
The Tribunal after recording the evidence held
negligence to an extent of 50% on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles and granted a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation. Dissatisfied with the sum awarded and finding on negligence, the present appeal is filed.
parties.
Ex.P3, the location of the vehicle at the time of the accident cannot be made out. The circumstances to prove the negligence are no at all available in the
4
MFA No.2585/2013
spot Panchanama. It is only in the complaint-Ex.P1 which has been produced by the appellant to prove the negligence on the part of the car driver. The contents of the complaint have not been proved by examining the author. The appellant has not examined any eyewitness to support the contents of the complaint-Ex.P1. It is also necessary to note that even the respondents have not placed any oral or documentary evidence in respect of their contentions. In the circumstances, the Tribunal accepting the contents of the complaint has held the negligence on the part of both the drivers to an extent of 50% each.
6. When there is nothing on record to prove
the negligence, I think the findings of the Tribunal would be improper and therefore, looking to the circumstances, I am of the opinion, it is a fit case where an opportunity to be given to both the parties to adduce oral and documentary evidence in respect of their rival contentions and then to dispose of the
5
MFA No.2585/2013
case in accordance with law. The question regarding the quantum of compensation is kept open, for the determination by the Tribunal.
judgment and award impugned are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for affording an opportunity to both the parties to adduce oral and documentary evidence in respect of their rival contentions and then to dispose of the case in accordance with law. To avoid the delay, both the parties are directed to appear before the
Tribunal on 06.07.2015.
Sd/JUDGE
VM
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal's finding of 50% negligence is sustainable in the absence of oral evidence or spot panchanama details?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M.Lathamma
M/S Tata AIG General Ins. Co. Ltd.
Ramesh.B.N.
A.S.Pachhapure
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
