Partly allowed

Rajanna v. Honneshgowda

Karnataka HC30 Jul 2021MFA/183/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed appeals against Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal orders dismissing claim petitions. Finding that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the case due to FIR delay and ignoring key evidence like MLC extracts and charge sheet, the Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

The judgment and award of the Tribunal set aside; matters remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration with liberty to implead the owner/rider of the offending motorbike.

Rajanna Vs Honneshgowda — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶5

MFA NO.182 OF 2016 A/W MFA NO.183 OF 2016 (MV)

¶6

IN MFA NO.182 OF 2016

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

1 . NAGANNA

¶9

48 YEARS, S/O NAGANNA

¶10

2 . SMT. SANNATHIMMAKKA AGE 45 YEARS, W/O NAGANNA

¶11

3 . N.KARIYAMMA 22 YEARS, D/O NAGANNA

¶12

4 . N. HARISHA 21 YEARS, S/O NAGANNA

¶13

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF BANDAKUNTE, GOLLARAHATTI-572 137 GOWDAGERE HOBLI, SIRA TALUK TUMKURU DISTRICT … APPELLANTS

¶14

(BY SRI.PATEL D. KAREGOWDA, ADV.)

¶15

AND :

¶16

1 . HONNESHGOWDA AGE 41 YEARS

¶17

¶18

S/O JAVARAPPA R/O MUDDAMADAGU VILLAGE – 572 137 SIRA TALUK, TUMKURU DISTRICT

¶19

2 . UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED I FLOOR, N.H.4, OPP.T.K.P.LODGE, SIRA, TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 137

¶20

… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.RAVISH BENNI, ADV. FOR R2; R1 SERVED.)

¶21

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.07.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.1036/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL.MACT., AT SIRA. THE CLAIM PETITION HEREBY DISMISSED WITH COST.

¶22

IN MFA NO.183 OF 2016

¶23

BETWEEN :

¶24

RAJANNA 35 YEARS, S/O NAGANNA R/O BANDAKUNTE GOLLARAHATTI-572 137 GOWDAGERE HOBLI, SIRA TALUK TUMKURU DISTRICT … APPELLANT (BY SRI.PATEL D. KAREGOWDA, ADV.)

¶25

AND :

¶26

1 . HONNESHGOWDA AGE 41 YEARS S/O JAVARAPPA R/O MUDDAMADAGU VILLAGE – 572 137 KATAHAVEERANAHALLI POST SIRA TALUK, TUMKURU DISTRICT

¶27

¶28

2 . UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED I FLOOR, N.H.4, OPP.T.K.P.LODGE, SIRA, TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 137

¶29

… RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SRI.RAVISH BENNI, ADV. FOR R2; R1 SERVED.)

¶31

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.07.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.1040/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL.MACT., AT SIRA. THE CLAIM PETITION HEREBY DISMISSED WITH COST.

¶32

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

Aggrieved by the common judgment and award dated 15.07.2015 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’ for short), Sira, in MVC Nos.1036 and 1040/2012, the petitioners therein have preferred this appeal.

¶35

The brief facts of the case are as follows:

¶36

On 12.08.2012, the appellant in MFA

¶37

No.183/2016 along with his brother late N.Chithaiah

¶38

¶39

were traveling on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-51/EB-3542 on the left side of the road near Social Welfare office on Sira-Changavara road in Sira town and at that time, the rider of another motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-06/R-7927 came from Changavara side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against their motorcycle and as a result of which, both the rider and the pillion rider fell down and sustained injuries. Due to the said accident, the said N.Chithaiah succumbed to injuries and his brother who is the appellant in MFA No.183/2016 sustained grievous injuries. Consequently, the appellants in MFA No.182/2016, who are the parents, sister and brother of the deceased Chithaiah, preferred MVC No.1036/2012 before the Tribunal and the injured Rajanna preferred MVC No.1040/2012 before the Tribunal.

¶40

¶41

Upon service of notice, respondent no.1 herein, who is alleged to be the owner of the offending motorbike, remained absent before the Tribunal and was placed ex parte and respondent no.2 – Insurance Company alone contested the case. To prove their case, the petitioners therein examined two witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P18 and respondent no.2 examined one witness and got marked Exs.R1 to R5.

¶42

Based on the pleadings and the evidence let in, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioners therein have failed to prove the happening of the accident itself, and hence, it has dismissed both the claim petitions. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the Tribunal, the petitioners therein have preferred these appeals.

¶43

¶44

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent no.2-Insurance

¶45

Company.

¶46

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the evidence on record has not been properly appreciated by the tribunal. The said accident happened on 12.08.2012 at about 7.00 p.m. and both the injured were immediately rushed to the Government Hospital, Sira. The Medico Legal Case (‘MLC’ for short) extract in respect of the deceased Chithaiah which is recorded at about 7.50 p.m. on the date of the accident states that he suffered the injures in a road traffic accident at Social Welfare office and he was brought by one Shivakumar. The MLC extract in respect of the injured Rajanna states that he suffered injuries in a road traffic accident at Social Welfare office, Sira between two motorbikes. Subsequently, they have been shifted to a hospital in

¶47

¶48

Bengaluru which records that the injury was due to a fall from a motorcycle. There is a delay of three days in filing FIR before the jurisdictional police. After investigation, they have filed the charge sheet against one C.Kumar whom the police have considered to have committed the accident by riding the offending bike. The said charge sheet does not mention the name of respondent no.1 herein against whom the claim petitions were filed alleging him to be the owner of the offending bike.

¶49

Learned counsel for respondent no.2-Insurance Company has contended that the said accident has never taken place and relies upon the delay in filing the FIR and hospital records, a few of which records the reason for the injury as fall from a motorbike. On the said ground, he has justified the judgment passed by the Tribunal and has sought for dismissal of the appeals.

¶50

¶51

8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants

¶52

contends that the Tribunal has completely ignored Ex.P17 - MLC extract regarding Rajanna which records the reason for the injury as an accident between two motorbikes. The said MLC is drawn on the date of the accident and it would have been impossible for anybody to concoct the same. It is contended that the Tribunal has erroneously not considered the said document. It is further contended that the Tribunal without any reason has disbelieved the charge sheet filed against one C.Kumar. However, the learned counsel fairly concedes that the proceedings before the Tribunal has not been properly conducted on behalf of the petitioners therein and prays that the matter may be remanded back to the Tribunal and an opportunity be given to the petitioners therein, otherwise, grave injustice will be caused to the appellants.

¶53

¶54

The allegation is that the accident happened between two motorbikes and the offending motorbike is duly insured with respondent no.2-insurance

¶55

company. The accident happened at about 7.00 p.m. on 12.08.2012 and immediately both the injured have

¶56

been rushed to Government Hospital, Sira and the MLC extract in respect of the injured appellantRajanna does record that the injury has been sustained by him on account of the accident between two motorbikes. The Tribunal has not considered the same. Further, a charge sheet is filed against the rider of the offending bike. The Tribunal has not considered it at all and there is no discussion in the judgment about the charge sheet having been filed. Mere delay in filing the FIR is not fatal in a motor vehicle case. What has to be looked into is whether the accident has taken place or not based upon the evidence adduced. The Tribunal has analysed the

¶57

¶58

delay in filing the FIR as it generally does in a criminal case and has held that it is fatal to the case. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion to meet the interest of justice, it is appropriate to remand the matter back to the Tribunal with an opportunity to all the contesting parties to raise all contentions in support of their case and adduce evidence.

¶59

For the aforementioned reasons, the following order is passed:

¶60

ORDER

¶61

(i) The appeals are allowed. The judgment and

¶62

award dated 15.07.2015 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sira, in MVC Nos.1036 and 1040/2012 is hereby set aside;

¶63

(ii) Both the matters are remanded back to the

¶64

Tribunal for fresh consideration;

¶65

¶66

(iii) The contesting parties are at liberty to raise

¶67

all contentions in support of their case;

¶68

(iv) The appellants herein are also given liberty

¶69

to implead the owner/rider of the offending motorbike after due verification;

¶70

(v) The observations made herein are only for the purpose of these appeals and the Tribunal based on the evidence shall take an independent decision in the matters;

¶71

(vi) The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 30^th August 2021 without any further notice;

¶72

(vii) Registry to return the trial court records forthwith.

¶73

Sd/JUDGE

¶74

hkh.

Rajanna v. Honneshgowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajanna v. Honneshgowda

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

Miss. Manvi. K. Krishna Vs the Secretary

Gurumalladevaru Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Miss. Kathyayini. K. Krishna Vs the Secretary

Sri Hanumanthappa H Siddlingappanavar Vs Smt. Leelavathi P Mahale

Naganna Vs Honneshgowda

Sri N K Visweswar Vs Sri M R Seetharam