Partly allowed

Smt Lalithamma v. Sri Sanjeev Murthy

Karnataka HC29 Nov 2022MFA/1124/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Motor Accident First Appeal and set aside the Tribunal's dismissal of the compensation claim. The Court allowed an application to produce additional evidence establishing the relationship between appellants and the deceased, remanding the case for fresh consideration on merits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment and award set aside; matter remanded to Tribunal for fresh consideration on merits along with additional evidence.

Smt Lalithamma Vs Sri Sanjeev Murthy — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 1124 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. JOSHI

¶9

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1124 OF 2019 (MV-D)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

Digitally signed by T S NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

SMT. LALITHAMMA W/O. LATE. SHANKRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS

¶13

SRI. PRAKASH. S S/O. LATE. SHANKRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

¶14

APPELLANT NOS. 1 AND 2 ARE R/AT NO. OPP: NH 04, NEAR CEETHA GRANIT, SATHYAMANGALA, TUMKUR - 572 104.

¶15

SRI. ANAND S/O. SHANKRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT HOSA BADAVANE, HOTEL BOOMIKA, SIDDARTHNAGARA POST, HEGGERE, TUMKUR - 572 104.

¶16

¶17

MFA No. 1124 of 2019

¶18

SRI. UMESH S S/O. SHANKRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT VENKATADRI BADAVANE, BELAGUMBA, TUMKUR - 572 104.

¶19

…APPELLANTS

¶20

(BY SRI. SUBRAMANI K N., ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND:

¶22

SRI. SANJEEV MURTHY S/O. BEEMAIAH, AGED MAJOR, R/AT NO. 313, HANUMANTHPURA, TUMKUR, OWNER OF BUS BER NO. KA-48-2517.

¶23

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. OFFICE:AT 6TH FLOOR, KRUSHI BHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. GEETHA RAJ., ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 SERVED UNREPRESENTED)

¶26

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.11.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.6069/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER OF MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH15), DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

¶27

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, C.M.JOSHI J., THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

¶29

MFA No. 1124 of 2019

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 02-11-2018 passed in MVC No.6069/2017 by the learned XIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and Member MACT, Bengaluru, whereby dismissing the petition filed for compensation, the appellants who are legal representatives of deceased Shankarappa have presented this appeal urging various grounds.

¶32

The brief facts of the case are as below:

¶33

The petitioners being the wife and children of one Shankarappa have filed claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of M.V.Act, claiming compensation on account of the death of Shankarappa in the road traffic accident that occurred on 8-8-2017 at 4.00 p.m. near New Market, Siragate, Madhugiri Road due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of a bus bearing Reg.No.KA.48.2517 contending that deceased was aged about 78 years working in private canteen and drawing a salary of Rs.10,000/- per month and they were entirely depending on him. Therefore, they sought for compensation from the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who are the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.

¶34

¶35

MFA No. 1124 of 2019

¶36

In pursuance of the notice issued to the respondents by the Tribunal, 1st respondent did not appear before the Tribunal and he was placed exparte and 2nd respondent Insurance Company appeared through its advocate and filed statement of objections admitting the ownership and insurer of the bus and denied remaining averments. However, it has contended that its liability, if any, is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy and also contended that petitioners No. 2 to 4 are the major sons of deceased and that deceased was not working as on the date of the accident. It is also contended that the driver of the bus was not having DL and that said Shankarappa was not died due to accidental injuries, but he died due to old age and some other ailment. Therefore, prayed to dismissed the petition.

¶37

On the basis of the above pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues for its consideration and after considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, has dismissed the petition holding that petitioners have failed to establish their relationship with the deceased. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners/appellants are before this court in appeal.

¶38

¶39

MFA No. 1124 of 2019

¶40

Heard the learned counsel Sri Subramani K.N., appearing for the appellants and learned counsel Smt. Geetha Raj, appearing for respondent No.2-Insurance Company.

¶41

In this appeal, the appellants have filed IA No.1/2019 under order 41 Rule 27 CPC seeking permission to produce Aadhar cards of the petitioners as additional evidence to substantiate that they are the legal representatives of the deceased Shankarappa.

¶42

It is submitted by learned counsel for both the sides that, the claim petition came to be dismissed only on the sole ground that the relationship between the deceased and the claimants was not established before the Tribunal. Now the appellants have produced the Aadhaar Cards of the appellants along with IA filed under order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. The affidavit filed in support of the IA discloses that non production of the identity documents was not intentional and it was bonafide mistake on their part. In view of the fact that the acceptable documents are produced by the appellants before this Court by way of additional evidence, it needs to be looked into. This Court also feels that they are the vital documents, the nonproduction of which has resulted in the dismissal of the claim, are essential for the just disposal of the case. The provisions of Section

¶43

¶44

MFA No. 1124 of 2019

¶45

166 of M.V. Act being a beneficial legislation, the said IA is allowed. When the said application is allowed, the compensation has to be calculated with reference to the evidence available on record and therefore, the matter needs to be remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.

¶46

Hence, we deem it appropriate that the appeal has to be allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and the matter has to be remanded along with the additional documents sought to be produced by the appellants to the Tribunal for fresh consideration on merits.

¶47

Hence, we pass the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶50

(ii) The impugned judgment and award dated

¶51

02-11-2018 passed by the Tribunal in MVC No. 6069/2017 is hereby set aside and matter stands remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration on merits.

¶52

¶53

MFA No. 1124 of 2019

¶54

(iii) It is needless to state that the Tribunal shall provide

¶55

an opportunity for both sides to putforth their evidence before it. However, the matter be expedited since it is of the year 2017.

¶56

(iv) Both the parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 03-01-2023 without waiting for fresh notice.

¶57

(v) The entire records, along with documents produced before this Court under IA 1/2019 be sent to the Tribunal for consideration immediately.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

tsn*

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 22

Smt Lalithamma v. Sri Sanjeev Murthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Lalithamma v. Sri Sanjeev Murthy

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 Chief Secretary Vs Smt. S Girija

The Chief Secretary Vs P M Sridhara

P M Sridhara Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Sri. M. Krishna Murthy Vs Sri. K.N. Gopal Krishna

State of Karnataka Vs Gangadhar

Basavalingappa Vs the Division Controller