Remanded

Sir B S Suresh v. Smt Arundhathi S Rao

Karnataka HC15 Mar 2021MFA/2524/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this first appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Divisional Bench found prejudice due to inadvertence of counsel. It quashed the Tribunal's dismissal of compensation and remanded the case to examine the eye-witness and Investigating Officer.

What did the court decide?

The judgment of the Claims Tribunal dated 23.12.2016 was quashed. The case was remanded to afford the appellants an opportunity to produce the eye-witness and Investigating Officer.

Sir B S Suresh Vs Smt Arundhathi S Rao — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF MARCH 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

¶7

M. F. A. NO.2524 OF 2017 (MV)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. B S SURESH

¶10

S/O LATE SATYANARAYANA RAO,

¶11

AGED 57 YEARS

¶12

SRI. B.S. SRIVASHA

¶13

S/O B.S.SURESH,

¶14

AGED 23 YEARS,

¶15

BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF NO. 313, 5^TH MAIN, 2^ND CROSS, KENGERI

¶16

SATELLITE TOWN, BENGALURU - 60.

¶17

...APPELLANTS

¶18

(BY SRI. VISWANATH SABARAD, ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

SMT. ARUNDHATHI S RAO W/O SATHYANARAYANA RAO, MAJOR, NO. 35, 3^RD MAIN ROAD, MARUTHI NAGAR, NAGARABHAVI ROAD, NAGARABHAVI, BENGALURU - 560 072.

¶21

¶22

THE MANAGER

¶23

ICICI LOMBARD INSURANCE CO. LTD., RAJALAKSHMI ARCADE, NO. 228/15, 9^TH MAIN, 2^ND CROSS, JAYANAGAR, 3^RD BLOCK, BENGALURU - 560 011.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. B.S. GURUDATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 SRI. B PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶26

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.12.2016 PASSED IN MVC No.198 OF 2012 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, RAMANAGARA, REJECTING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

¶27

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles

¶30

Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been filed by the claimants against the judgment dated 23.12.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

¶31

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal, briefly

¶32

stated, are that on 24.03.2012 at about 5.00 p.m., the deceased, Anuradha was traveling as a pillion rider in Honda Activa vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-02-EP-3763. It is the case

¶33

¶34

of the claimants that the said vehicle was being driven by one Sathyanarayana (RW-1). When they reached near Vinayakanagar Layout, the rider of Honda Activa drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which the vehicle skidded and the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, she was shifted to hospital. During the course of treatment, she expired on 29.04.2012. The claimant thereupon filed a petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act claiming compensation inter alia on the ground that the accident has taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle, namely Sathyanarayana. It was also pleaded that the deceased used to earn Rs.15,000/- p.m., as she was a condiment maker. It was further pleaded that the claimants are entitled to compensation on account of death of the deceased in the aforesaid accident.

¶35

Respondent No.1 in the written statement

¶36

pleaded that the vehicle was insured with respondent No.2

¶37

¶38

Insurance Company and the policy was in force. It was also pleaded that the accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the Honda Activa by the deceased herself. It was further pleaded that the deceased had a valid driving licence. However, the fact that she was earning Rs.15,000/- p.m., was denied.

¶39

The respondent No.2 in the written statement, inter alia, admitted that the vehicle in question was insured with respondent No.2. However, it was stated that its liability is subject to the terms and conditions mentioned therein. It was also pleaded that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent of the driving of the vehicle by the deceased and she herself has caused the accident. Therefore, the claimants are not entitled to any compensation.

¶40

On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimants have examined one witness as

¶41

¶42

PW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. On behalf of the respondents, Y.N.Sathyanarayana and K.S.Kiran were examined as RW-1 and RW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R4. The Claims Tribunal, vide judgment dated 23.12.2016, inter alia held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by deceased herself. Therefore, the claimants are not entitled to any compensation. Accordingly the claim petition was dismissed. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.

¶43

Learned counsel for the appellants, at the outset, submitted that the appellants may be granted an opportunity to examine the eye-witness to the accident as well as the Investigating Officer in support of the case.

¶44

Aforesaid prayer has not been opposed by learned counsel for the respondents.

¶45

¶46

In the fact situation of the case and taking into account the well settled legal principle that due to inadvertence on the part of the counsel, a party should not suffer, we are inclined to grant one opportunity to the appellants to produce the eye-witness to the aforesaid accident as well as the Investigating Officer.

¶47

In the result, the judgment dated 23.12.2016 passed by the Claims Tribunal is quashed. Matter is remitted to the Claims Tribunal for affording an opportunity to the appellants to produce the eye-witness to the accident and the Investigating Officer.

¶48

Learned counsel for the parties undertake to appear before the Claims Tribunal on 29.03.2021 along with a copy of this judgment. The Claims Tribunal, thereafter, shall afford an opportunity to the appellants to produce the eyewitness to the accident and the Investigating Officer before the Claims Tribunal. In case the appellants are not able to produce the Investigating Officer, the Claims Tribunal shall

¶49

¶50

issue summons to the Investigating Officer for their appearance. The Claims Tribunal shall make an endeavour to decide the case within a period of three months there from.

¶51

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

¶52

SD/JUDGE

¶53

SD/JUDGE

¶54

Sir B S Suresh v. Smt Arundhathi S Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sir B S Suresh v. Smt Arundhathi S Rao

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

Coffeeday Global Ltd. Vs Additional Commissioner of Income Tax

K C Sampath Vs Chandrashekarappa

Smt. Saroja.v Raikar Vs Ganesh v Raikar

Basavaraju Vs R G Prashanth

The Manager Vs Narayana Swamy

M/S R K Developers Vs Income Tax Officer