This Miscellaneous First Appeal challenges the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's order dismissing a compensation claim arising from a road accident. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding no infirmity in the findings that implicated the respondents.
Appeal dismissed. Original judgment and award dated 31st December 2014 are confirmed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1961 OF 2015 (MV)
BETWEEN:
All are Agriculturist R/at Halasablau Village Harihara Taluk-577 601.
…Appellants
(by Shri M R Hiremathad, Advocate)
AND
2
Aged about 29 years Driver of the Auto bearing Reg.No.KA-17/B-1676 R/o Kamalapura Village Harihara Taluk-577 516.
…Respondents
(by Shri H S Lingaraj, Advocate for R3; R1 and 2 are served)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and award dated 31.12.2014 passed in MVC No.65 of 2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Member, Additional MACT, Harihara, dismissing the claim petition for compensation.
This Appeal coming on for hearing on Admission, this day, INDIRESH J., delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is filed by the claimant against the judgment and award dated 31st December, 2014 passed in MVC No.65 of 2012 by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Harihara (for short,
3
hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal’), dismissing the claim petition.
appeal are referred to with their status and rank before the Tribunal.
4
Hence, claimants filed MVC No.65 of 2012 before the Tribunal seeking compensation.
appearance. Respondent No.1 and 2 have not filed written statement, however Respondent No.3-Insurance Company filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. It was contended by the Insurance Company that there were two pillion riders on the motorcycle on the date of accident and therefore, submitted that there is a breach of Policy condition and as such, no liability shall be fixed on the respondent-Insurance Company. The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings on record, framed issues for its consideration. Claimant No.3 was examined as PW1 and examined the rider of the motorcycle as PW2 and produced 9 documents and same were marked as Exhibits P1 to P9. The respondent-Insurance Company examined its officer as RW1 and marked two documents as Exhibits R1 and R2. The Tribunal, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and award dated 31st December, 2014 dismissed the claim petition with costs of Rs.5,000/-. Being aggrieved by the same, claimants have presented this appeal.
5
appellants that the finding recorded by the Tribunal, dismissing the claim petition is without any cogent reasons and same is liable to be interfered with in this appeal. He further contended that the claimants have examined PW2eye-witness to the accident and same was not appreciated in the right perspective by the Tribunal and therefore, sought interference of this Court in this appeal.
6
the accident occurred on 30th September, 2011 at about 2.10 pm, complainant Nagarajappa took the injured-Savitramma to the Government Hospital, Harihara and as per Exhibit R1-MLC the case for the accident was “hit by bike, where there were two pillion riders”. The said MLC record establish that the injured Savitramma got admitted to the Hospital at around 2.20 pm. Thereafter, the complainant Nagarajappa to the Harihara Rural Police Station at around 5.00 pm alleging that the said accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the autorickshaw bearing registration No.KA17/B-1676. Perusal of the record would further indicate that no investigation was done by the RTO authorities and issued IMV report. No document is forthcoming from the record to substantiate that the autorickshaw in question was seized by the Police authorities. Exhibit P2-Complaint by Nagarajappa is subsequent to MLC record (Exhibit-R1) and therefore, Exhibit R1 is the reliable document to discern the cause for the accident and in that view of the matter, the finding recorded by the Tribunal particularly at paragraph 23 and 24 of the impugned judgment is just and proper and the claimants have not approached the Tribunal with clean hands
7
and in that view of the matter, do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal. In the result, appeal is liable to be dismissed, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
lnn
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal correctly dismissed the compensation claim petition filed by the claimants.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shivappa S/o late Nagappa
Y S Manjula D/o Shivappa
Y S Santhosha S/o Shivappa
Y S Malashree D/o Shivappa
Kumar @ Vijaykumar S/o Nagarajappa
J C Revanasiddappa S/o Jigali Chandrappa
S. SUJATHA
E.S. INDIRESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
