Allowed

Manjunatha v. Nagaraja Kayakada

Karnataka HC10 Jun 2021MFA/6306/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenges the dismissal of a motor accident compensation claim due to an alleged discrepancy in the vehicle number mentioned by the claimant. The High Court found the Tribunal's reliance on this clerical error to be erroneous and ordered a remand.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 18.08.2012 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.

Manjunatha Vs Nagaraja Kayakada — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶5

M.F.A.NO.6306/2013 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MANJUNATHA S/O DURGAPPA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS DRIVER, R/O K.T.J. NAGARA, 15^TH CROSS DAVANAGERE-577001

¶8

… APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI SHASHIDHARA R., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

1 . NAGARAJA KAYAKADA

¶12

S/O JATYAPPA AGE: MAJOR R/O JOYISARAHARALAHALLI RANEBENNUR TALUK HAVERI DISTRICT-581115 DRIVER OF APE PASSENGER AUTO BEARING NO.KA-27/A-2133.

¶13

2 . MALLISHANTAPPA JATYAPPA KAYAKADA AGE: MAJOR R/O JOYISARAHARALAHALLI RANEBENNUR TALUK HAVERI DISTRICT-581115 PROPRIETOR OF APE PASSENGER AUTO BEARING NO.KA-27/A-2133.

¶14

¶15

3 . THE MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NO.289/12 2^ND FLOOR, A.M. ARCHADE C.G. HOSPITAL ROAD DAVANAGERE-577002

¶16

4 . KAREGOUDA S/O SHIVANAGOUDA PATIL AGE: MAJOR R/O JOYISARAHARALAHALLI RANEBENNUR TALUK HAVERI DISTRICT-581115

¶17

5 . DIVISIONAL MANAGER CHOLAMANDALAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 15^TH CROSS, NO.135/5 2^ND FLOOR, J.P. NAGARA BENGALUERU-560078

¶18

… RESPONDENTS

¶19

(R-1, R-2, R-4 ARE SERVED; SRI A.M.VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-3; SRI B.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R-5)

¶20

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.08.2012 PASSED IN MVC.NO.450/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE, HAVING CONCURRENT CHARGE OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MACT, DAVANAGERE, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

¶21

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH ‘VIDEO CONFERENCE’ THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award passed in M.V.C.No.450/2009 dated 18.08.2012 on the file of the I Additional District Judge and MACT at Davanagere questioning the dismissal of claim petition.

¶25

The claimant, in the claim petition has pleaded that he was proceeding in the auto rickshaw bearing No.KA-27/A-255 and at that time, the offending vehicle bearing No.KA-27/A2133, ape passenger auto rickshaw came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against his auto rickshaw. As a result, he has sustained grievous injuries and was immediately taken to the hospital. It is his case that due to the accidental injuries, he has suffered permanent disability.

¶26

While filing the claim petition, at the first instance,

¶27

the claimant arrayed the driver and owner of the vehicle bearing No.KA-27/A-2133 as parties and subsequently, the other vehicle owner and insurer was impleaded. The respective insurance companies have filed the objection statement.

¶28

¶29

The Tribunal, while considering the case on hand has found the discrepancy in mentioning the vehicle number in the claim petition. On perusal of the document particularly, Ex.P1FIR and the statement recorded in the hospital, the claimant has categorically mentioned that he was traveling in the auto rickshaw bearing No.KA-27/A-2133 and this statement was recorded in the hospital and the offending vehicle number is mentioned as KA-27/A-255. The Tribunal while assessing the evidence, has wrongly come to the conclusion that FIR and the statement of the injured supports the contention of the Insurance Company and the said finding given by the Tribunal is erroneous. It appears that the claimant, while mentioning the vehicle number in the claim petition, instead of mentioning the vehicle number in which he was proceeding, he has mentioned the vehicle number as KA-27/A-255 as the offending vehicle. But the FIR and statement of the injured is very clear that he was proceeding in the vehicle bearing No.KA-27/A-2133 and the same has lost sight of the Tribunal and the Tribunal erroneously dismissed the claimant petition stating that the claimant has not proved the same. The Tribunal, in paragraph No.16 has made

¶30

¶31

observation with regard to non-amendment of claim petition and also the pleadings.

¶32

Having taken note of the said fact, it is appropriate to remand the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration and the claimant is given opportunity to make corrections in the claim petition with regard to mentioning of the vehicle number in which he was traveling, which requires amendment of the pleadings and evidence which has been led before the Tribunal wherein, the petitioner has committed mistake in mentioning the vehicle number. Therefore, merely because the claimant has mentioned the wrong vehicle number in which he was traveling, the same will not take away the case of the claimant. The Court should not be too technical and substantive justice should be done. Hence, the matter is to be remanded to the Tribunal for consideration afresh by giving an opportunity to the respective parties to adduce their evidence and allow the parties to amend the pleadings and claim petition suitably and if necessary, to amend the written statement.

¶33

¶34

In view of the discussions made above, I proceed to

¶35

pass the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

(i) The appeal is allowed.

¶38

(ii) The impugned judgment and award passed in M.V.C.No.450/2009 dated 18.08.2012 on the file of the I Additional District Judge and MACT at Davanagere is set aside, the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for considering the matter afresh in view of the observation made in the order.

¶39

(iii) The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 12.07.2021 . The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter within six months, since the appeal is of the year 2009.

¶40

(iv) The respective counsels are directed to assist the Tribunal for speedy disposal of the case within the stipulated time.

¶41

(v) Registry is directed to transmit the TCR to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

Manjunatha v. Nagaraja Kayakada

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjunatha v. Nagaraja Kayakada

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

M/S Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Mr Chandashekar T M

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs v M Sundar

Smt.Rathnamma Vs Chief Executive Engineer

Sri Patalappa Vs Sri Venkataramanappa

Mr Sanjeeva Gowda Vs B N Adinarayana Guptha

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs Gowramma