Dismissed

Mr. Jayanth v. Mr. M a Abdul Kunhi

Karnataka HC15 Mar 2022MFA/1609/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed Motor Accident claims appeals filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The court rejected a prayer for time extension regarding a 2016 matter, dismissing the appeal against Respondent No.1, which effectively dismissed the connected appeals against other respondents as well due to joint and several liability fixed by the Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

The matter was disposed of by dismissing the appeals against Respondent No.1 and all connected respondents jointly and severally.

Mr. Jayanth Vs Mr. M a Abdul Kunhi — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶6

M.F.A. No.1609/2016 (MV) C/W

¶7

M.F.A. No.1608/2016 (MV)

¶8

IN M.F.A. No.1609/2016 (MV)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MR. JAYANTH S/O SHYAM KOTIAN, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,

¶11

MRS. PUSHPALATHA, W/O JAYANTH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶12

MISS. PRAJETHA, D/O JAYANTH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,

¶13

ALL ARE RESIDING AT CHOWTARA COMPOUND, SHIVANAGARA, PANDESHWARA, PANDESHWARA VILLAGE, MANGALORE TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT, PIN – 575 008

¶14

… APPELLANTS

¶15

(BY SRI. G.RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

MR. M.A.ABDUL KUNHI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

¶18

¶19

R/AT H NO.11/171, ‘A’-GRAHAM, CHEMMANAD, KALNAD POST, KASARGOD, KERALA STATE, PIN – 670 121

¶20

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., IV FLOOR, CRYSTAL ARCADE, NEAR HOTEL ROOPA, BALMATTA ROAD, MANGALORE, D.K. DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER PIN – 575 001

¶21

MR. ABDUL SAYIRU, S/O A.MOHAMMED, MAJOR, R/AT SHAMEER MANZIL, ADKA, MANGALPADY, BANIDYOD, KASARGOD, PIN – 670 324

¶22

...RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI.P.B.RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2;

¶24

SRI. TALEKANA RADHAKRISHNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R3; V/O/DTD 15.03.2022, R1 DISMISSED)

¶25

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.10.2014, IN MVC NO.1369/2009 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DJ & MACT MANGALORE AND CLAIM PETITION BE ALLOWED AS PRAYED FOR BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

¶26

IN M.F.A. No.1608/2016 (MV)

¶27

BETWEEN:

¶28

MRS. KAMALA W/O LATE HARISH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶29

¶30

MRS.SHWETHA S/O SACHIN, AGED 30 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT SUJATHA NILAYA, KADNETTU, BIKARNAKATTE, MANGALORE TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT PIN-575 019.

¶31

… APPELLANTS

¶32

(BY SRI G RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY, ADVOCATE)

¶33

AND:

¶34

MR. MA ABDUL KUNHI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT H NO.11/171, A GRAHAM, CHEMMANAD, KALNAD POST, KASARGOD, KERALA STATE PIN-670 121

¶35

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., IV FLOOR, CRYSTAL ARCADE, NEAR HOTEL ROOPA, BALMATTA ROAD, MANGALORE, D.K.DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER PIN-575 001

¶36

JAYANTH S/O SHYAM KOTIAN, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT H NO.19-4-165, CHOWTARA COMPOUND, SHIVANAGARA, PANDESHWARA, MANGALORE, D.K. PIN-575 004.

¶37

ASHOK T AMIN S/O TANIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

¶38

¶39

R/AT GULABI SADAN, HIGE BAZAR, MANGALORE TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT, PIN-575 007

¶40

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., FIRST FLOOR, EMJAYS COMPLEX, OPP: NETHRAVATHI BUILDING, BALMATTA, MANGALORE, D.K.DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER PIN-575 001

¶41

MR.ABDUL SAYIRU S/O A.MOHAMMED, MAJOR, R/AT SHAMEER MANZIL, ADKA, MANGALPADY, BANIDYOD, KASARGOD. PIN – 670 324

¶42

...RESPONDENTS

¶43

(BY SRI. P.B.RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. C.M.POONACHA, ADVOCATE FOR R5; R3 & R6 ARE SERVED & UNREPRESENTED; V/O/DTD 15.03.2022, R1 DISMISSED; R4 DEAD)

¶44

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.10.2014, IN MVC NO.1367/2009 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DJ & MACT MANGALORE AND CLAIM PETITION BE ALLOWED AS PRAYED FOR BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

¶45

THESE MFAs COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶46

¶47

J U D G M E N T

¶48

Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to take steps against respondent No.1. This matter is of the year 2016. Already sufficient time is granted. Hence, prayer is rejected. The appeal is dismissed as against respondent No.1.

¶49

The Tribunal has fixed the liability on respondent Nos.1 and 6 jointly and severally. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of respondent No.1 and therefore, the dismissal of appeal against respondent No.1 is having the effect of dismissal of the appeals as against remaining respondents also.

¶50

Accordingly, the appeal as well as the connected appeal are also dismissed.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

Mr. Jayanth v. Mr. M a Abdul Kunhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Jayanth v. Mr. M a Abdul Kunhi

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

Smt. Mangallamma Vs the Managing Director

Nagaraju Vs the Managing Director

The State through Adarsh Nagar Police Station Vs Akalak Ahamed S/O Allabax Mulla and Ors.

Kum Usha Vs Sri Arun Kumar

M/S v K Coir Industries Vs v.K.Venkatesh

Smt. Mumtaj Begum Vs the Managing Director