Dismissed

The Sericultural Extension Officer v. Sri D Ramachandrappa

Karnataka HC20 Apr 2022MFA/10436/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act against a Motor Accident Claim Tribunal award, this Court dismissed the appeal after finding no evidence that the claimant was under the influence of alcohol or that the offending vehicle was parked, thus confirming the Tribunal's award.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the Tribunal judgment and award dated 11.12.2009 was confirmed.

The Sericultural Extension Officer Vs Sri D… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶6

M.F.A.NO.10436/2011 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

THE SERICULTURAL EXTENSION OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF SERICULTURE, (TECHNICAL SERVICE CENTRE), GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, SRINIVASPUR.

¶9

THE DIRECTOR, K.G.I.D., MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT, P.13, NO.5325, VISHWESHWARAIAH CENTRE, BANGALORE-560001.

¶10

… APPELLANTS

¶11

(BY SMT. LEENA C., SHIVAPURMATH, HCGP)

¶12

AND :

¶13

SRI D. RAMACHANDRAPPA S/O DODDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, MUDDALAHALLI, MURUGAMALLA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK

¶14

... RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI D.K. SRIRAMAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶16

¶17

THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:11.12.2009 PASSED IN MVC NO.29/1996 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) & MACT, CHINTHAMANI, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.2,52,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION AND ETC.,

¶18

THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

This appeal is filed under Section-173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellant, challenging the judgment and award dated 11.12.2009, passed in MVC No.29/1996, on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and MACT, Chinthamani.

¶21

Brief facts:

¶22

That the claimant by name D.Ramachandrappa on 11.12.1995 at about 8.30 p.m., was proceeding to his Village Muddalahalli on his T.V.C. champ bearing registration No.KA.07.4973 near Goapasandra Village, Chintamani Srinivaspur Road, a jeep bearing registration No.CAG 607 driven by the driver i.e., 3^rd respondent herein belonging to 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant, as a result of the

¶23

¶24

said accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries i.e., fracture of left leg and other parts of the body. The claimant took treatment as an inpatient from 12.12.1995 to 23.12.1995 and he got operated. He is not in a position to work now and even now he is on follow up treatment. The claimant spent more than Rs.50,000/- for treatment. He is an agriculturist and used to rear cattle, sheep, hen and silkmath etc. He is also vending milk and he was earning Rs.200/- per day from the above said activities.

¶25

Hence, a claim petition was filed by the claimant under Section-166 of the M.V. Act, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident. The Tribunal on appreciating the materials on record, allowed the petition in part, and awarded compensation of Rs.2,52,000/(Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Two Thousand Only) along with interest at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The Tribunal held respondent Nos.1 and 2 are liable to pay the compensation.

¶26

¶27

The appellants have preferred the present appeal on the ground that the respondent – claimant had himself hit the jeep in question when the jeep was parked. Further, submitted that respondent-claimant had consumed alcohol. Therefore, under the influence of alcohol, he had caused the accident. Therefore, submitted that the driver of the first appellant’s vehicle was not the tort-feaser. However, this evidence has not been considered by the Tribunal.

¶28

Further, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that there is a delay of 13 days in lodging the complaint. Therefore, the factum of accident as narrated by the respondent – claimant cannot be accepted. Hence, prays to reverse the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal by allowing the appeal.

¶29

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-claimant submitted that the appellants have not produced any evidence to show that the respondent-claimant was under the influence of alcohol

¶30

¶31

and caused the accident, which is only an assumption of the appellants just to avoid to pay the compensation, but there are no evidence to prove that the respondentclaimant had consumed the alcohol. Further submitted that the offending vehicle was Jeep and was not parked, but it was moving and suddenly came and dashed to the two wheeler. In this regard, the accident had occurred. This is rightly appreciated by the Tribunal. Therefore, submitted that there is no merit in the appeal. Therefore, prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶32

Considering the submission made by the learned Government Advocate and also taking into consideration the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum that the respondent–claimant had consumed the alcohol, I have perused the evidence on record, much particularly, the medical records, but there is no whisper in the medical records that the respondent-claimant had consumed the alcohol and admitted to the hospital. Exs.P.204 and P.205 are the Case sheets of the hospital. On perusing the same in the history of the incident, there

¶33

¶34

is no mention that the respondent-claimant was admitted in the drunken condition. Therefore, it is only an explanatory statement of the appellants that the respondent – claimant had consumed alcohol, but that is not substantiated by any evidence by the appellant. This is rightly considered by the Tribunal in its observations while answering issue No.1.

¶35

Furthermore, the Tribunal has observed that the offending vehicle Jeep was not parked, but it was moving and suddenly came and hit the two wheeler of the respondent-claimant. RW-2 is stated to be eye witness to the accident. But upon perusing the evidence of all these witnesses, it is not revealed that the Jeep was parked and was hit by the motor cycle. Even on perusal of Exs.R2 and R3 – Accident Register Extracts, it is not stated that the Jeep was parked. Therefore, the appellants have failed to prove the ground raised in the appeal in order to allow the appeal. Hence, there is no evidence available for the appellants to prove that the jeep was parked and was hit by the respondent, which belongs to 1^st respondent and at

¶36

¶37

the same time, there is no evidence that the respondentclaimant had consumed alcohol. Therefore, for all the aforesaid reasons, the appeal fails. Hence, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be confirmed as the appeal is found to be devoid of merits. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

i. The appeal is dismissed .

¶40

ii. The Judgment and Award dated 11.12.2009,

¶41

passed in MVC No.29/1996, on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), And MACT, Chinthamani, is hereby confirmed.

¶42

iii. Draw award accordingly.

¶43

iv. No order as to costs.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

The Sericultural Extension Officer v. Sri D Ramachandrappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Sericultural Extension Officer v. Sri D Ramachandrappa

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

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Sundara

Shri Vimal K S S/O Sri Sugantha Kumar L R Vs the Bracnh Manager

The United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Renukamma

Namadev S/O Bakkappa Kamble Vs the State through

Smt Sharavana Prabha Vs the Manager

Mr Siddeshi Vs Mr Mohammed Saifulla