Allowed

Sri R Maria Soosai v. Sri Chikkaramappa

Karnataka HC3 Sept 2021MFA/6672/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed an appeal against an award of Rs.12 lakh by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The single judge held that the Tribunal acted hastily by recording judgment before allowing the appellant to cross-examine a witness. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal to provide a fair opportunity for cross-examination and add further evidence, with the appeal allowed and compensation set asi

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; impugned judgment and award set aside; matter remanded to Tribunal to allow cross-examination and lead further evidence; costs imposed on appellant.

Sri R Maria Soosai Vs Sri Chikkaramappa — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶5

MFA NO.6672 OF 2015 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SRI. R. MARIA SOOSAI S/O RAJENDRA K. M. AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT NO.21, KITTAGANOOR ROAD GARDEN CITY COLLEGE BENGALURU – 560 036 … APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SRI. NANJE GOWDA T.V., ADV.)

¶9

AND :

¶10

SRI. CHIKKARAMAPPA S/O LATE THIRUMALAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

¶11

SMT. MUNIYAMMA W/O CIKKARAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶12

BOTH ARE R/AT KAMANDAHALLI VILLAGE BANGARPET TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 114 … RESPONDENTS

¶13

(R1 AND R2 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶14

¶15

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.07.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.78/2015 ON THE FILE OF 5^TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, 24^TH ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.12,00,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF ITS REALIZATION.

¶16

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 23.07.2015 passed by V Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore (SCCH-20) and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in MVC No.78/2018, the respondent therein has preferred this appeal.

¶19

It is the contention of the appellant that he is the owner of motorcycle bearing registration No.KA53/EB-1368. It is alleged that on 17.05.2014, at about 1.00 a.m. in the midnight, the deceased K.C.Venkatesh was riding as a pillion rider on the said

¶20

¶21

motorcycle and when the motor cycle reached near Holi Church, Bengaluru, the said K.C.Venkatesh fell down from the motorcycle and sustained grievous injuries and thereafter he died. However, it is pleaded before the Tribunal that the said K.C.Venkatesh fell down from the motorcycle and died as the same was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The petitioners before the Tribunal are the respondents herein who are the dependents/legal representatives of the deceased K.C.Venkatesh and they preferred MVC No.78/2018 before the Tribunal.

¶22

After service of notice, the appellant entered appearance through his counsel before the Tribunal and filed his written statement.

¶23

In support of their case, the respondents herein

¶24

have examined one witness and produced Exs.P1 to

¶25

¶26

P12. The appellant has neither examined any witness nor marked any documents.

¶27

Based on the pleadings and the evidence let in, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realisation to the respondents herein. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent therein has preferred this appeal.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. In the instant appeal, it is noticed that the respondents herein, though served have remained absent and they have not made any representation. I have perused the original documents and records including the order sheet of the Tribunal.

¶29

It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant appeared before the Tribunal and filed his statement of objections.

¶30

¶31

However, due to change in Counsel, PW.1 could not be cross examined nor he could lead evidence within time. Hence, he has preferred an interlocutory application before the Tribunal under Section 151 of CPC on 22.07.2015 to have PW.1 recalled and cross examine him and also the appellant intended to lead further evidence. However, on the ground that the case was posted for judgment, the Tribunal rejected the said application and posted the matter for judgment. By the impugned judgment, it has partly allowed the petition filed by the respondents herein.

¶32

It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal acted in a hasty manner and has not given adequate opportunity to the appellant herein to cross examine PW.1 before the Tribunal or lead evidence. It is stated that the appellant could not do so for bona fide reasons.

¶33

¶34

It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle and in fact he has been acquitted in the criminal case. The deceased fell down as he was not sitting properly on the motorcycle and he sustained injuries because of his own negligence and not because of the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle.

¶35

It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that if due opportunity is given, the appellant would be able to establish the relevant facts before the Tribunal. It is further stated even presuming that the appellant is liable, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side.

¶36

Given the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that in the interest of justice,

¶37

¶38

the Tribunal upon imposing costs on the appellant herein should have allowed his application and permitted him to cross examine PW.1 and also lead further evidence.

¶39

As already stated above, the respondents though served have remained absent. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to remand the matter to the Tribunal on imposing certain costs on the appellant herein. Hence, the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

i) The appeal is allowed; ii) The impugned judgment and award is set aside; iii) The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal with a direction to the Tribunal provide an opportunity to the appellant to

¶42

¶43

cross examine PW.1 and lead further evidence;

¶44

iv) Costs of Rs.5,000/- is imposed on the appellant herein which shall be paid to the respondents herein @ Rs.2,500/- each;

¶45

v) The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 4^th October 2021 without any further notice;

¶46

vi) As the respondents herein have remained absent in the present proceedings, and if they do not appear before the Tribunal on

¶47

04.10.2021, the Tribunal shall issue court notice to the respondents herein to proceed with the case;

¶48

vii) Registry is directed to return the records to the jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith;

¶49

¶50

viii) The amount lying in deposit with this Court, if any, shall be transferred to the jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith;

¶51

ix) Pending I.A.No.1/2015 does not survive and it stands disposed of.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

hkh.

Sri R Maria Soosai v. Sri Chikkaramappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri R Maria Soosai v. Sri Chikkaramappa

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

Naveen Mahesh Vs Riad Mahmood

Naveen Mahesh Vs Riad Mahmood

Riad Mahmood Vs Naveen Mahesh

Nagaiah Vs State of Karnataka

G v Sarvamangalamma Vs G Veeranna

G v Subramanya Naidu Vs Smt Mamta Desai